Raven Housing Trust Limited (202304072)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304072

Raven Housing Trust Limited

13 September 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
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbouring properties.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom first floor flat with her 2 children, since 2017.
The resident has said she started experiencing issues at that time and the landlord offered mediation in 2018, which her neighbour rejected.

Scope of investigation

In the interests of the Ombudsman investigating issues that are still ‘live’, it is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme. In this case, the resident has referred to issues she had with a number of neighbours since 2017, but it is apparent that matters escalated in 2022 and the complaint to the landlord was made in May 2023. While earlier reports of issues have provided important context to the current complaint, this investigation is, therefore, focused on events from 2022 onwards.
It is also important to note that, in the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to a separate complaint made to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO) about a housing banding decision. That determination and the issue of housing bandings is not something this Service can comment upon, as it falls within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO (reflected at paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme). However, the information has been noted by way of background to the issue being considered here.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show the resident reported that her neighbour’s dog had been barking all day on 26 February 2022 and she had been trying to work.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 June 2022 about issues she was having with her neighbour. She also spoke with the Council regarding ASB and on 1 July 2022 she was sent details of how to request a case review (Community Trigger). On 26 July 2022, she made a report to the police that from 1 to 26 July 2022 she had been harassed by her neighbours. She made a further report on 11 September 2022 about criminal damage over the period 1 August to 10 September 2022. A further report was made to the police on 2 November 2022 about her car being damaged.
In December 2022, the resident wrote to her local councillor and explained she had experienced ASB since 2017. She said in December 2021 a dirty face mask was put through her door which she reported to the landlord and police, and the police suggested she install a camera. She installed one and did not have any other issues directed at her home. However, the issues escalated in 2022. Her car had been damaged on several occasions and she had experienced intimidating behaviour from her neighbours. They were also very noisy and allowed a dog to run and bark in the hallway which disturbed her when working. She stopped reporting issues as she did not feel welcomed in the community, so chose to keep herself to herself. She purchased a camera to keep in her car, but it did not record any damage due to it being dark.
The resident told the councillor there was an incident with a neighbour shouting at her and this was reported to the landlord, but the neighbour then moved so nothing could be done. However, her former neighbours visited other neighbours and were very noisy. She had reported numerous issues with her car being damaged to the police. The police went door to door but said people may be concerned about coming forward in case they became subject to any attacks. She had sought help from her GP who diagnosed anxiety and who wrote to the landlord about her being rehoused. She confirmed she had been referred for many months of counselling and to victim support.
Having submitted medical evidence, the resident was awarded additional housing priority on medical grounds and was moved to Band B on 3 January 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 April 2023 having been told by the police her car had been damaged. It advised her that it could arrange a management move and it could also put her on the waiting list for a garage. However, it seems the resident did not go on the waiting list for a garage and she declined the offer of a management move.
In March and April 2023, the police visited the resident and took details of reports of her car being damaged. The landlord was made aware of the issues and in April 2023 arranged to refer her for coaching support and sent out log sheets for her to complete.
The resident advised the Ombudsman that she had complained to the landlord about its response to her ASB reports and harassment from neighbouring properties on 24 November 2022, but had had no response. Following this Service’s intervention on 17 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 May 2023 and said it would respond by 6 June 2023. On 30 May 2023 the landlord contacted the police and explained the resident was experiencing hate crime by way of her car being damaged and asked for any information it had which could help it address it.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 6 June 2023, it acknowledged the resident’s reports but said the majority of the harassment had been by a neighbour that had since moved. If she was being intimidated, it was right to report the matter to the police as it had no relationship with those involved, so there was little it could do.
In terms of reports of ASB such as door slamming and loud telephone calls early in the morning, this was logged on 5 October 2022, but the landlord accepted its Homeownership team had failed to deal with the case as it should have. It did though say it chased the return of incident logs on 7 November 2022 and explained that, without them, it was hard to take action. It also wrote to all residents on 11 November 2022 about noise and asked people to report any issues. The case was then closed on 14 November 2022 when the incident reports were not returned and no one else reported issues.
The landlord noted that a Community Trigger meeting took place on 15 December 2022 and there were no actions for it to take, as the police were dealing with the reports of criminal damage. It acknowledged the resident apparently wanted support with a managed move, but explained this had been discussed in the past. She needed evidence from a police officer ranked sergeant or above documenting that there was a risk to her life, or a member of her household, should they remain in that property, to consider it further. However, it did say it would explore a move and she would be contacted by someone about that. It also offered to write to the Council where she was on the waiting list for housing in an attempt to increase her priority banding. Having accepted it should have contacted her sooner with regards to the complaint of ASB, to recognise the distress caused, it offered compensation of £100.
On 8 June 2023, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said she did not agree with the landlord’s response because:
1. The harassment had not just been from the neighbour that left, but by other neighbours they had associated with also.
2. The issues she experienced such as damage to her car, playing music loudly, using cars to block her in, encouraging a dog to run up and down the stairs barking, were not seen as ASB as far as the landlord was concerned.
3. She had completed incident logs in the past but it resulted in an increase in ASB, so she did not complete them, but was recording incidents on her phone.
4. She had been reporting issues to the police rather than the landlord as she felt she received more support. However, she was continuing to have issues with her neighbours.
5. The neighbour that moved still visited her next door neighbour and loud music was played, which the landlord did not acknowledge as ASB.
6. She did not want a management transfer as she felt it would not meet her needs. She wanted to remain in Band B on a waiting list and would appreciate a letter from the landlord in support of her getting a 3 bedroom home.
7. Some of her neighbours acknowledged to the police that they knew she was experiencing issues but they did not know who was doing it.
8. She had been experiencing issues since 2017 but felt she only received support from her GP and not the landlord. The landlord could have taken action sooner and she sent in her summary of events for it to consider.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 June 2023 and said it would respond by 6 July 2023. On the same day, it wrote to all residents making them aware it was investigating reports of ASB, including damage to vehicles and asked for people to come forward with information.
On 19 June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord’s Tenancy Enforcement Officer. She thanked her for visiting her on 16 June 2023. The resident said it really helped her as she did not feel so alone. She noted that it also gave her an understanding of how the landlord operates and the importance of reporting incidents to help build a case, alongside the police and the local Council.
Throughout June 2023 the landlord liaised with the police, who explained that, although the resident stated she was the victim of criminal damage to her vehicle, they were unable to establish a suspect and her dash cam footage had not helped. The landlord noted a crime reference number from the resident for an incident with her vehicle on 22 June 2023. The resident did not have footage of the incident as it was too dark but explained she had reported the last 3 incidents to the police.
Also in June 2023, the landlord wrote to the Council about the importance of the resident finding a new property. At the same time, the resident confirmed she was receiving support from a third party agency and the landlord also took steps to arrange a second set of support coaching for her. It also nominated her for support from Community Harm and Risk Management Meetings (CHaRMM). This was explained to the police on 26 June 2023 and the landlord also confirmed the resident did not want a management move but explained this meant it was limited in the action it could take to help her.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 July 2023, and thanked the resident for allowing it more time to respond. It said:
1. It felt it had addressed the points in the complaint. It had acknowledged its communication could have been better, so it stood by its view there had been a shortfall in its service as explained at stage 1 and the compensation offered was reasonable.
2. It did noted that a summary of events had been provided but apart from noise complaints in 2018 and 2019 which were investigated, it found no evidence of reports of neighbours taking photos of her, standing outside her home or watching/listening to her. It agreed that had it known of these issues sooner, it may have been able to intervene. Noise complaints had also been made against the resident and it had offered to install sound insulation, but she had declined as it would have been too much of a disturbance to her and her family. In terms of the many complaints about damage to her vehicle, this was correctly referred to the police.
3. It understood the resident did not want to move to another 2–bedroom property, as she wanted a 3–bedroom home suitable for her family. It explained that it worked with the Council to ensure that managed move households retain their position on the housing register.
4. Management moves are an exception to its Allocations Policy and Nomination Agreement with the Council, so with the support of the police and statutory agencies such as Children’s or Adults Service and/or Mental Health Teams, it aimed to protect households who were at risk of “significant harm” if they stayed in their current home. It said if this was something she wanted to pursue, she would need supporting letters from the police and any other statutory agencies supporting her.
The resident advised the landlord on 17 July 2023 that she remained unhappy and would refer her complaint to this Service. The resident’s letter to this Service dated 19 July 2023 confirmed that:
1. The landlord had failed to acknowledge, investigate or address the serious issues of harassment, intimidation, hate crime and criminal damage that the resident and her children were facing.
2. The landlord had not provided adequate care or support for the resident’s vulnerable family. The landlord failed to support the resident in December 2022 prior to the community trigger meeting and did not offer support until May 2023 when the matter was referred to this Service.
3. The landlord’s offer of management transfer to a 2–bedroom home and then a move to a 3–bedroom property afterwards was impractical and would further impact the resident’s mental health and wellbeing, as well as causing financial strain.
4. The landlord’s claim that the resident would remain on the same banding if she accepted a management transfer to a 2-bedroom flat is incorrect. Once the resident moved away and was no longer deemed at risk, she would be switched from Band B to Band C and treated as lower priority.
5. The offer of compensation was unacceptable for what the resident and her children have and continue to experience.
6. The landlord’s claim that the resident refused insulation is false. She explained that the landlord’s surveyor told her insulation would not make a difference so they would not undertake the work.
On 18 July 2023 the landlord offered to install CCTV. This was fitted on 9 August 2023, at both the resident’s property and a neighbour’s home, to capture any issues with the resident’s car. The resident was told the memory card lasted a week so it would then be checked and if nothing was captured, the memory stick could be reinstalled.
As of February 2024 the resident remains on Band B but has been unable to find a property that she can bid on.

Assessment and findings

Reports of ASB from neighbouring properties

The Tenancy Agreement says the landlord does not tolerate ASB and it should be reported so it can take action. The landlord’s ASB Policy says it “will consider action against ASB perpetrators whether it is committed by customers, a member of their household, a member of the wider community, a member of staff or a contractor or agent of [the landlord]”. It goes on to explain that ASB is defined under Section 2 of the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 as:
1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. Examples could include: noise nuisance; intimidation and harassment; the fouling of public areas; abusive, offensive threatening language and behaviour actual violence against people and property.
The ASB policy says a hate crime is any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, for example, based on race.
The evidence shows the landlord was aware that the resident had been having issues with her neighbours for some time. In its stage 1 response, the landlord commented that some neighbours had moved but it is not clear when they moved or what action it took to address the ASB when they were there. Aside from that, the landlord’s response indicated that there was little it could do as it did not have a relationship with those involved. That comment suggests it knew who the suspected perpetrators were and its ASB Policy states it will consider taking action even if ASB is carried out by people from the wider community.
Therefore, irrespective of whether the landlord had a contractual relationship with the people involved, it still had the ability to consider, and take action on, the ASB being reported. Although the comment made by the landlord was not useful, it did go on to take a number of steps to address the ASB, demonstrating that it took the reports seriously, which was appropriate.
The landlord has said it logged reports of noise on 5 October 2022, but no details relating to that report have been provided. It is apparent from its stage 1 response that it accepts it failed to take action after that and that goes against its ASB Policy and amounts to a failure in service. However, it is also important to recognise that the resident has accepted that she did not always report ASB to the landlord. She seems to have thought that some issues did not fall within the landlord’s ASB Policy, but the Policy makes it clear the landlord could consider harassment and violence against property.
Bearing in mind the resident claimed she was being blocked in and damage was being caused to her vehicle, while this was of course also a matter for the police, it would also be for the landlord to consider as ASB. The landlord could only act upon information it was party to, and while it was not always made aware of every issue, it did work with the police and the resident and took steps to address the ASB including:
1. Making referrals to third party agencies for help for the resident, such as coaching support.
2. Liaising with the police over the issues she was having including reporting that she was experiencing hate crime by way of her car being damaged.
3. Liaising with the Council over rehousing the resident.
4. Setting up CCTV at the property.
5. Meeting with the resident to discuss the issues.
6. Sending out incident log sheets to complete.
7. Offering a managed move.
8. Suggesting mediation.
9. Writing to all residents about the ASB encouraging them to report any ASB.
10. Suggesting she park her car elsewhere and offering to put her on the waiting list for a garage.
The landlord’s ASB Policy says it will encourage people to report incidents, liaise with other agencies to stop harassment, agree an action plan with the complainant where possible and use coaching and mediation. In addition, evidence will be collected in a variety of ways, including through customers recording incidents and CCTV for example. Although it is not clear whether the landlord agreed an action plan with the resident, it is apparent it took many steps to address the ASB; therefore, complying with its obligations.
In order for the landlord and police to be in a position to take any action, the resident needed to collate evidence of the ASB she was experiencing and this proved to be difficult. In the meantime, the landlord did what it could to help the resident and it was the right thing for it to signpost her to the police to report any criminal damage.
The recurrence of the ASB incidents escalated in 2022. The police advised the resident that these incidents were harassment and criminal damage. Following her report of the latest incidents in November 2022, the police told the resident that these matters could also be considered hate crimes and aggravated criminal damage. Hate related incidents are a distinct form of ASB. The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) published a guidance document in 2016 called ‘How to tackle hate crime’. It defines hate crime as: ‘Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice’.
A hate crime might relate to a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.
The CIH guidance also defines a hate incident. This is noted as: ‘A report to the police (or other authority) that might then be classed as one or more crimes’. The landlord’s ASB policy includes a similar definition of the two terms. Whether a hate incident is deemed to be a hate crime is a matter for the police to decide, not a social landlord. However, all levels of incident that meet the above perception test (i.e. is the incident perceived by the victim to be motivated by hate?) when reported to a landlord should be taken seriously, recorded, and lead to an appropriate response.
On this occasion, the landlord appears to have identified that the incidents the resident was experiencing were potential hate crimes, but this does not appear to have influenced its handling of her ASB reports. The landlord’s email to the resident dated 13 April 2023 acknowledges that she is the victim of hate crime. The landlord was also clearly informed in November 2022 and December 2022 that the resident and the police considered the continuing incidents to be hate crime. However, the landlord does not appear to have a dedicated hate crime policy and its ASB policy does not explain how staff should handle the matter differently from any other ASB.
The CIH’s guidance document, ‘How to tackle hate crime’, underlines that having a specific policy covering the different types of hate crime is essential to establish the importance of the issue for the landlord, both for staff and tenants, and to set out its principles that it will follow. Specifically, the policy should outline the steps that will be taken in response to hate incidents, including a mix of non-legal and legal remedies, up to and including possession proceedings where justified. Non-legal actions could include more proactive work to promote better community relations. It is therefore ordered that the landlord implements a hate crime policy and provides staff training on hate crime. It is vital that all staff, in particular those in customer-facing roles – are trained in recognising different levels of hate crime, given understanding of the types of discrimination felt by different groups, shown how to respond sympathetically and given practical examples to consider. Staff training is not only necessary to ensure that hate crime is recognised and appropriately handled, but also to give confidence to potential victims that they can report incidents and that they will be properly dealt with.
The landlord’s lack of policy means that it does not appear to have taken steps to understand the motivations behind the incidents so as to identify whether they are hate-related harassment and/or hate crime. The Equality Act 2010 defines hate-related harassment as: ‘Unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.’
It is clear that the continued incidents created an intimidating environment for the resident. However, the evidence provided by the landlord indicates that it failed to document any assessment of the incidents in order to formally identify it as a hate crime and/or hate-related harassment. The landlord’s ASB policy commits it to taking a victim-centred approach. This means acting on the information presented by the victim even if it is unconfirmed or unsubstantiated, and approaching all cases in a sensitive and non-judgemental way. As the police has confirmed, there is a lack of evidence to confirm who is the perpetrator/s. The landlord referred to a lack of evidence within its email dated 13 April 2023. It explained that ‘without evidence there is not a lot Raven as a landlord can do’. This is true up to a point; however, the landlord could have taken additional measures to help the resident obtain evidence and encourage them to report future incidents.
The CIH’s guidance on tackling hate crime indicates that crime surveys suggest that hate crime is severely under-reported. Only by taking action to encourage reporting can the full scale of such crimes be seen and victims properly helped. However, there were occasions in 2022 when the resident reported incidents to the landlord and its response was delayed or inadequate. The resident has indicated that this meant she felt that not all her reports were appropriately logged and she chose to report directly to the police instead.
As organisations which have a trusted relationship with their customers, social landlords are in an excellent position to encourage and enable residents to report hate crimes. The CIH’s guidance states that victims that are given the opportunity to report hate crime without approaching the police directly has been shown to improve access to the criminal justice system. Third-party reporting helps victims to feel comfortable in coming forward to receive the necessary support. It also offers opportunities for reporting through different channels – including face-to-face, by phone and online. Landlords should therefore do everything to avoid barriers that prevent victims reporting and empower them to obtain evidence.
The landlord should have appropriately logged and addressed each of the resident’s reports. In addition, it could have informed her of alternative reporting routes. Stop Hate UK is a charity that provides independent and confidential support to people affected by hate crime. They provide confidential hate crime reporting services, including a 24 hour helpline. The True Vision website has been developed so that victims can report hate crimes online without the need to visit a police station.
The landlord arranged for covert CCTV cameras to be installed at the resident’s property and a neighbouring property in August 2023. I note that the landlord sought advice from the police and was told they were unable to place any CCTV in the area and therefore the cameras had to placed within properties. The landlord has noted that the purpose of the cameras was to tackle continued car damage. However, as the resident’s correspondence with the landlord highlighted, the camera would only partly capture the road, there were no street lights and she did not always park in the same space. This meant the cameras were unlikely to capture any incidents at night or incidents when the resident had to park out of view.
Due to the ineffective cameras provided by the landlord, the resident confirms that she purchased a camera for her car and a video doorbell. The landlord should have considered the viability of taking steps to arrange for additional street lighting to be installed (either by taking its own action or approaching the local authority). This would have improved the effectiveness of the cameras. It is recommended that the landlord considers this option. Street lighting is also proven to reduce crime. A College of Policing report from 2013 indicates that there are two main explanations for this. The presence of improved street lighting helps to increase surveillance, ‘guarding’ locations and deterring potential offenders. Improved lighting also signals investment in the community, increasing community pride and informal social control.
Aside from considering improving street lighting, the landlord could also have taken other steps to improve the resident’s feeling of security and her ability to capture incidents. One additional option the landlord could have considered is the Hollie Guard app. This offers a cost-effective personal safety service. It allows the user to automatically start their smartphone’s camera and microphone to capture real-time evidence. It can also send a message to the user’s emergency contacts. The Hollie Guard Extra (which requires a monthly subscription) sends the alert to a 24/7 police-approved monitoring centre.
The landlord’s website confirms that if a resident is subjected to a hate incident it will take immediate action to support them, contact the resident and work in partnership with other agencies to agree the best possible solution. The landlord has indicated that the case was referred for a Community Harm and Risk Management Meeting. As part of this a risk assessment was completed; however, the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the meeting minutes or the risk assessment. However, its internal correspondence shows that it discussed support with the resident and she explained that she was already receiving support from Alliance Support Coaching and Surrey Minority Ethnic Forum.
A risk assessment is the assimilation of information to determine the risk of harm being posed to an individual. It is completed following a conversation with the victim. Best practice is for the assessor to undertake the assessment without reference to the scores and associated levels of risk. Made up of carefully structured questions, the assessment highlights risk at an early stage and prioritises it according to the level of severity. Once the level of risk has been identified, the assessment will then guide the case handling officer towards the appropriate and necessary steps to try to protect the victim from further harm. The outcome of the assessment is shared with all agencies involved with the case to provide adequate support to the victim.
When the risk assessment is completed, I would also expect the landlord to consider the vulnerable status of the resident as a victim of a hate related incident. This includes a consideration of any safeguarding concerns. The CIH published a guidance document in 2020 called ‘How to support hate crime victims’. It confirms that following a report of hate incident, the vulnerability of the victim should be assessed as soon as possible. The guidance highlights that hate crime is recognised as having a more significant impact on its victims, compared with victims of non-hate motivated offences. There are both direct and indirect impacts ranging from physical injury to emotional and/or psychological harm. It quotes a Crime Survey for England and Wales which found that hate crime victims were twice as likely to suffer a loss of confidence or increased feelings of vulnerability after the incident compared with non-hate crime victims. In addition, not all victims have the same ‘starting point’, some are more vulnerable and at risk than others. The resident has indicated that she transferred to her current home due to a fear of violence. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord has recognised the resident’s ‘starting point’ makes her more vulnerable and at risk than others.
A risk assessment is not merely a bureaucratic exercise, but integral to the management of a hate related incident case. This is because its identification of high-risk or medium-risk victims guides the subsequent handling of the case. By identifying vulnerability and risk, the ASB case handler should consider ‘doing more’ with the victim, for example, offering greater reassurance, taking more time to communicate, or communicating more frequently. These factors underline the importance of the landlord undertaking a risk assessment and ensuring that the resident is supported. Although, it is clear that the landlord took steps to identify if she was supported, it could have taken additional steps to ensure the resident was informed of additional support available from independent organisations such as Stop Hate UK, Victim Support or Supportline. Most importantly, the landlord has been unable to evidence that a risk assessment took place and how that it informed its management of the ASB case. This is a significant shortfall in its handling of these ASB reports.
The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that, as part of its victim-centred approach, it will discuss and agree an action plan with the victim. The landlord has failed to provide evidence to show that it took this step. The action plan should have been agreed and shared in writing with the resident soon after her reports were logged. A lack of understanding of what steps are being taken contributes to residents feeling that their ASB case is not being dealt with efficiently or effectively. Clarity for residents of what actions are going to be taken, and by when, improves understanding and sets realistic expectations. Written action plans can also help the landlord as a case management tool. This is a further shortfall in its handling of ASB on this occasion.
Hate crime and ASB incidents left unaddressed can easily escalate, entrench and expand into other issues. This can wear down community bonds – leading to a wider, deeper sense of dissatisfaction. In addition, a lack of action can also erode trust and confidence in the landlord’s commitment to tackling ASB. The Victims Commissioner’s report on ASB has highlighted that the police, local authorities and social housing landlords all have responsibility to tackle ASB by working together to help victims. Too often, victims are being passed from one body to the other and feeling as if no one is listening.
The nature of ASB is such that it may require many agencies to be involved in investigating and resolving it. On this occasion, the landlord has not simply referred the resident to the police. The landlord has acted on her reports by meeting with the resident, by liaising with the police, writing to her neighbours about ASB, offering a management move, installing covert CCTV cameras, proposing mediation, offering to add the resident to the waiting list for a garage and providing log sheets to complete. Some of these actions could have been taken earlier by the landlord, but they are all evidence of the landlord taking the resident’s reports seriously and seeking a resolution.
It is acknowledged that ASB cases with a lack of independent evidence make it difficult for landlords to identify the correct course of action. However, as noted above, there were additional steps the landlord could have taken to improve the resident’s feeling of security and her ability to capture evidence. Although the landlord has taken steps to address the reports of ASB, there have been shortfalls in its handling of this matter. The landlord has failed to provide evidence that a risk assessment took place, that considered the resident’s vulnerability, and how that risk assessment informed its management of the ASB case. In addition, the landlord has not shown that it discussed and agreed an action plan with the resident. Of particular concern is that the landlord’s staff identified that the incidents were potential hate crimes, but this does not appear to have influenced its handling of the ASB reports in any way.
Overall, these failings are indicative of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB. It is ordered that the landlord should provide a compensation payment of £500 and an apology.
The landlord’s guidance on Management of Emergency Moves says this process is used when there is a need for a household to move outside of the normal allocation processes due to an emergency (such as risk to a household member due to violence or a property related matter). It says only one offer of similar sized, or smaller accommodation will be made as part of this procedure and a Management Move cannot be used to facilitate a move to a larger home. This means it was not possible for the landlord to offer a 3-bedroom property through this process.
The resident has explained that her family required a 3-bedroom property and accepting a 2-bedroom home now and then moving on to another 3-bedroom property later was impractical. She explained that this would only further negatively impact her mental health and wellbeing, as well as causing financial strain.
As per the landlord’s policy, it is simply not possible for the landlord to offer the resident a move from a 2-bedroom property to a 3-bedroom home using its management or emergency moves process. The landlord’s offer of a 2-bedroom property was therefore reasonable and in line with its guidance. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 14 July 2023 stated that management moves are an exception to its allocations policy and nomination agreement with Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. It explained that households that are at risk of ‘significant harm’ if they remain in their current home will retain their existing position on the housing register. The landlord’s guidance on management or emergency moves does not include reference to this exception.
This Service has contacted the landlord and asked it to confirm that the statement from the complaint response dated 14 July 2023 remains accurate. It confirms that it is correct. The landlord states: ‘if the landlord management moves a resident from one property to a same sized property, the resident retains their position on the council’s list, as the move has not given them any advantages. However, this is not in the landlord’s written procedure/guidance, as the council own and manage the housing register, and our procedure cannot include a policy statement that we cannot enforce. As this is a niche subject it is not covered in the council’s allocation policy either and the landlord cannot influence it changing this.’
The landlord’s position is reasonable. It has an informal agreement to not disadvantage residents who relocate via its management move process. The landlord is unable to document this process as the housing register is ultimately owned and managed by the council. This Service is unable to consider matters relating to the way in which the housing register is managed. Nevertheless, without this process being formally documented or the landlord offering a secure guarantee, I can appreciate why the resident is reluctant to take up the landlord’s offer. It is therefore recommended that the landlord confirms that it will consider offering the resident a management move again. The landlord should again confirm that the resident will not lose her band B priority for a 3-bed property if she takes up its offer. If, following a move, the resident does lose her priority position, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take action to reinstall her priority banding position or to offer a management move to a 3-bed property.
It is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or inaction by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says complaints at stage 1 will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. At stage 2, the complaint will be responded to within 20 working days. It says if timescales need to be extended the complainant will be kept informed and updated about any extensions, and those exceeding 10 days at stage one or 20 days at stage two will be agreed with the complainant.
There is no evidence of a complaint being made to the landlord until this Service sent it details of the resident’s complaint on 17 May 2023. It was acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and although it was not responded to within 10 working days of receipt, the landlord’s Complaints Policy is not clear on whether a response should be sent within 10 working days of receipt or from it being acknowledged.
This Service’s new Complaint Handling Code says a landlord must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and in this case the landlord did that. It had also told the resident it would send a response by 6 June 2023 and it adhered to that. It rightly recognised there was a failure in its service and in accordance with its Compensation Policy, it offered the resident compensation of £100.
Even though the resident accepted she had been reporting issues to the police rather than the landlord and that she had not been completing the incident logs, she was entitled to ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord again acknowledged this within 5 working days and the resident was told a response would be sent by 6 July 2023.
A response was not sent until 14 July 2023; 6 working days later than promised. Allowing 20 working days from acknowledgement, the response was still sent 3 working days later than it should have been. However, the Complaints Policy says if timescales need to be extended the complainant will be kept informed and updated about any extensions. The comment made by the landlord in its stage 2 response indicates it had liaised with the resident and she had agreed an extension. The resident’s response on 17 July 2023 made no mention of the response being late which suggests the landlord had put her on notice of that, and she accepted that.
The stage 2 response addressed the points made by the resident and reiterated its stage 1 position. The resident has said the Summary of Events she provided when she made the complaint had been available to the Tenancy Officer at the Community Trigger meeting, so it should have been aware of all the reports. It is not possible to say with certainty based on the information available, whether the landlord did have that information, but even if it did, that meeting did not take place until mid December 2022, at which point the landlord was already on notice that the ASB had escalated.
The Ombudsman understands why the resident remains unhappy, and wants to move, but the evidence shows that the landlord’s handling of her complaint was reasonable throughout. As such there was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from neighbouring properties.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation.
2. Pay the resident £500 in compensation for the failings identified with its handling of ASB reports (this is inclusive of the £100 already offered by the landlord).
Within 16 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Implement a dedicated hate crime policy. The landlord should consider the guidance on designing a hate crime policy within the Chartered Institute of Housing’s ‘How to tackle hate crime’ report (October 2016).
2. Provide all ASB, complaints and any other customer-facing staff with training on hate crime. The landlord should consider the guidance on staff training within the Chartered Institute of Housing’s ‘How to tackle hate crime’ report (October 2016).

Recommendations

The landlord is to:

Consider the viability of taking steps to arrange for additional street lighting to be installed in the parking area (either by taking its own action or approaching the local authority).
Confirm in writing that it will consider offering the resident a management move again. The landlord should also confirm that the resident will not lose her band B priority for a 3-bed property if she takes up its offer.
Commit in writing that if, following a move, the resident does lose her priority position, the landlord will take action to reinstall the resident’s priority banding position or offer a management move to a 3-bed property.