Longhurst Group Limited (202233030)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233030

Longhurst Group Limited

23 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 handling of:
1. An antisocial behaviour (ASB) case.
2. The residents report of low water pressure and request for a replacement bathroom.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord at the property from 10 June 2019 until 7 July 2024. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The resident has no vulnerabilities and the landlord’s records reflect this.
On 8 February 2021, the resident told the landlord that her neighbour had hit and damaged 3 front doors in the block, including hers, with a hammer. She said that this had happened on 5 February 2021 and that she had reported it to the police at the time. The neighbour was due to appear in court that morning. The resident said she and other residents were scared.
The landlord called the resident back on the same day. She told it that she had not seen the neighbour since the police removed him. She said that she felt unsafe because he knew that she had reported him to the police. She said that over the past 5 months he had damaged the communal ceilings and doors in the hallway and had put notes under his neighbours’ doors accusing them of harassing him, even though they had had nothing to do with him.
The resident called the landlord again later that day to advise it that the neighbour was now out of custody. She said she did not feel safe because she had heard his voice in the communal hallway. She said she was frightened and wanted to transfer to another property.
On 8 February 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter. It confirmed that it had logged an ASB case about the incident. It enclosed a copy of an action plan. Actions for the resident included not approaching the neighbour and calling the police and landlord if there were any further incidents. The landlord’s actions were to try to contact the neighbour and to continue to remain in contact with the police, other agencies and other residents.
On February 2021, the neighbour’s community psychiatric nurse (CPN) advised the landlord that the mental health crisis team were helping him. However, he had not attended his bail address. Police attended his property but he did not open the door. The landlord contacted residents of the block who said that he had been back there since his release and they were concerned for their safety.
The landlord contacted the neighbour on 10 February 2021. He said that his neighbours were harassing him and that they were “satanists that worshipped the devil.” The landlord spoke to his CPN who advised that they were applying for a warrant to get him assessed. The landlord telephoned the resident on 18 February 2021. She advised it that she did not feel safe in the property.
The landlord sent a final warning letter to the neighbour on 16 April 2021. It advised him that he had been issued with an acceptable behaviour contract and must not:
1. Approach or engage with any neighbouring properties.
2. Behave in a way to cause nuisance, distress, alarm, or annoyance to neighbours.
3. Tamper with or damage any fixtures or fittings in the communal area or neighbouring properties.
The landlord contacted the neighbour on 19 April 2021 to discuss the warning and behaviour contract. He told it that he was not in the area but would not disclose his location.
The resident called the landlord again on 19 April 2021. It called her back on 22 April 2021. She advised the landlord that she had not seen the neighbour for about a month but could hear that someone was in his flat. The landlord noted that it gave “usual advice re calling the police.”
The resident called the landlord again on 19 January 2022. She asked for an update on the ASB case. She said that there were currently broken eggs on the neighbours’ door and that she and other residents of the block still felt intimidated by him due to “strange behaviour.” She said that the neighbour had taken a photograph of her as she came into the property. The landlord told her that it was still investigating the case and obtained permission to talk to the neighbour about taking the photograph.
The landlord arranged to visit the neighbour on 26 January 2022 but he did not respond. The landlord sent him a letter to tell him that there had been a further complaint that he had taken a photograph of another resident outside the block. It said that if he continued this behaviour, it would be a breach of his behaviour contract which could result in the landlord taking further action.
The resident called the landlord on 1 April 2022. She said that the neighbour was leaving his front door open all the time and she was worried that he might attack her as she walked past. She said that there was also a “bad smell” coming from the flat. She said that he also kept leaving boxes outside her flat and had also left a bed frame near her door which was causing her problems with getting in and out of her flat. The landlord arranged to visit the neighbour on 5 April 2022.
The landlord held a meeting on 6 April 2022 to discuss appropriate further action with the ASB case. It decided to complete an enforcement approval form and contact mental health services.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 6 April 2022. It told him about the recent complaints received and said that it wanted to discuss the residents report that he had taken her photograph as she entered the building. It gave the neighbour the residents flat number and told him that she had reported this. It said that it was concerned for his health and wellbeing and asked if he had spoken to his GP. It said that it would refer its concerns to adult services and that it needed to conduct a property inspection due to reports of a bad smell.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 11 April 2022. She said that the neighbour was still leaving his front door open. The landlord told her that the investigation was ongoing and that it could not give out any information.
On 19 April 2022, the resident reported that she did not have a shower and that the water pressure in her bathroom was not strong enough to support the use of a hose attached to it. She said it was not practical or hygienic for her to bathe and wash her hair in the bath. She wanted the water pressure rectified.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord held a review meeting of the ASB case with its legal team. It said that the case was to be “allocated for a notice of seeking possession application.” It also decided that it should conduct a joint visit to the neighbour’s property. It wrote to the neighbour to arrange this.
The resident asked the landlord for a managed move on 27 April 2022. The landlord told her that it was taking all necessary action against her neighbour. The landlord told her that she would not be eligible for a managed move. It explained the transfer process and waiting times. The resident also reports that it told her that she would probably end up somewhere worse if she moved. It sent her a transfer application form to complete. However, the resident did not complete it.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 5 May 2022. It emailed him the following day to confirm that he had refused to allow it to inspect his flat. The email also reiterated the landlord’s concerns. The landlord made a referral to adult services in which it said that it had “several concerns” about him. It said that it had spoken to him outside his property on 5 May 2022 and his behaviour was “aggressive and concerning”. He had been shouting in the street and could not control his emotions. It said that it was concerned for his wellbeing and that of his neighbours.
The landlord visited the neighbour again on 25 May 2022 but he would not allow entry to his flat again. The landlord noted that “following this visit I would not feel comfortable attending the property without a police presence as advised the customer appears to be very angry towards myself and the association and believes we are harassing him.”
On 22 June 2022, the resident asked the landlord when it would replace her bathroom. She said that it had previously written to her to tell her it would replace it in 2022. She said she was “desperate for a shower to be fitted” and that there was low water pressure in her bathroom. The landlord emailed a response the same day. It said that she should have recently received a letter “detailing the external challenges the construction industry is facing, which have resulted in delays to the delivery of our replacement programme that we are working hard to overcome. Once a new contractor has been recruited, we will have further information to share but until then we are not in a position to give a further update”.
The resident called the landlord on 23 June 2022. The landlord told her that it could not take action against her neighbour regarding leaving his door open as this was not a breach of tenancy conditions. She said that the neighbour had told a friend of hers that he was going to have to move because the resident had complained about him. The landlord said that it would “not disclose who had made a complaint.”
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 June 2022. It told her that it would allocate the job to investigate the low water pressure in her bathroom to a new contractor after 1 July 2022.
On 5 July 2022, the mental health home treatment team contacted the landlord. They advised it that the neighbour appeared to “be in relapse with his mental health” and that they were treating as high priority. They said that they would visit him again “with a view to admit him to hospital.”
On 7 July 2022, the landlord visited the neighbour and completed a property inspection. It noted that it had no concerns following the inspection and that there were no signs of a bad smell. It wrote to the neighbour and confirmed this. It noted that after a review with management it would now close the case.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 July 2022 to advise her that it had closed the ASB case. It said that “all agreed actions have been completed and previous allegations dealt with and appropriate action taken.”
On 3 October 2022, the landlord raised a repairs job to investigate and rectify the low water pressure in the resident’s bathroom.
On 8 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that she was not happy that it had closed the ASB case. She asked it if it understood what it was like to “live near an aggressor” or to “walk into the building not knowing if you were going to meet the person who attacked you.” She said that when she moved into the property, the landlord told her that it would replace her bathroom in 2022 but it had now said that this had been pushed back to 2024. She said that she could not fund an electric shower herself. She said that the area inspector had told her that the water pressure was too low for an attachment to the tap to be effective. She asked how she could maintain good hygiene without a shower head. She said that when it had made the problem worse when it replaced the mixer tap in her kitchen with 2 separate taps.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint in writing on 13 December 2022. It sent the letter to the resident’s email but it addressed the letter to the neighbour she had complained about. The letter confirmed that following a telephone conversation with the resident it understood that she still felt vulnerable due to the outcome of the ASB case and wanted it to look at the case again. She also wanted an update on the bathroom refurbishment or at least for the landlord to address the low water pressure or provide a shower head.
As part of its investigation the landlord noted, on 5 January 2023, that there was a note on its repair contractors’ portal asking them not to attend. This said that the resident had said that she had been told by the landlord’s surveyor that there was nothing that could be done because the low pressure affected the whole block.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 5 January 2023. It said that its’ planned works team had advised that it would consider the bathroom for replacement in 2024. It apologised that it had previously told the resident that it would replace it by 2022. It said that the 2022 date had been “automatically generated” but the 2024 date was more accurate and based on inspections. However, this was also subject to change. It said that it had raised a repairs job for low water pressure in October 2022. However, there was a note on their system that the resident had asked them not to attend because a surveyor had told her that low pressure affected the whole building. It advised the resident to report the issue again if it was still a problem.
It said that it had fully investigated the ASB and closed the case. It said that it had received no recent reports of issues with the neighbour. However, it apologised for the stress the resident had endured and said that it would “send the case to the housing team to let them know how you feel and to see what other support we can offer.”
The resident remained dissatisfied and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process. The landlord acknowledged this on 30 March 2023. It clarified that the resident felt that the stage 1 response did not provide any answers about the handling of the ASB case and that she was seeking a clear answer about when the landlord would fit a new bathroom in her property.
As part of the stage 2 complaint investigation the landlord telephoned the resident and then provided her with contact details for available support services.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 21 April 2023. It said that her bathroom refurbishment was due to be completed during the 2025 financial year. It said that this would include installation of an electric shower over the bath. It apologised that this was in the future but said that her bathroom was in good condition. It said that the repairs team had investigated the low water pressure in October 2022 and found there was no issue with it when her shower extender, which was fitted to the taps, was removed.
It said that it had looked to see if the ASB case should be re-opened. Following its call to the resident it understood that there was no current ASB but that the resident was still anxious about the previous incident. It said that she should log and report any further incidents.
On 2 April 2024, when providing evidence, the landlord told this Service that it had since reviewed the ASB case. It said that it recognised that it was unable to evidence the required level of support offered to the resident since the incident in February 2021. It therefore spoke to her to make sure that it offered support and revisited her request for a transfer. The resident moved via management transfer on 7 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the ASB case.

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will:
1. Ensure any information provided to us in respect of an ASB complaint is treated in the strictest confidence, for example from witnesses.
2. Review any potential vulnerability and the risk of harm to the complainant by completing a vulnerability matrix.
3. Complete risk assessments throughout the case in accordance with the ASB procedure.
4. Always consider and complete referral and signposting to support agencies where available and appropriate.
5. It may also make a referral to its’ safeguarding team depending on the outcome of the vulnerability matrix and any changes of circumstance throughout the duration that the case is open.
The landlord did not adhere to its policy to treat information provided to it in the strictest confidence when it told the neighbour the flat number of the resident that had reported him for taking a photograph. This failure caused the resident distress and feel more at risk because her friend told her that the neighbour knew who had reported him. When the resident asked the landlord about this it said that it would “not disclose who had made a complaint” which was not the case. This Service has seen no evidence that it investigated this. This failure could have put the resident at further risk.
This Service has also seen no evidence that the landlord completed a vulnerability matrix with the resident. This failure meant that it did not assess her vulnerability within the situation. The resident called it several times to tell it that she did not feel safe, was frightened, and was concerned that she would be attacked. However, this still did not prompt it to follow its’ policy. This failure meant that the resident felt she was not being listened to and added to her distress.
The landlord failed to offer signposting to support agencies or to consider a referral to its’ safeguarding team when the ASB was at its worst. It only offered signposting to support agencies during the stage 2 complaint investigation and again when it reviewed the case after the resident contacted this Service. This failure meant that the resident was not given the opportunity to access support when she needed it most which added to her distress.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it completed risk assessments throughout the ASB investigation. When the resident asked it for a management transfer it told her that her circumstances would not meet the threshold for this. However, it should not have made this decision without carrying out appropriate risk assessments. The advice it gave meant that the resident did not feel that it was worth completing a transfer application form. The landlord has since provided the resident with another property but its failure to risk assess and provide adequate advice at the time led to the resident remaining in the property for longer than necessary.
The mental health team told the landlord that the neighbour seemed to be in relapse on 5 July 2022. The landlord should have carried out a further risk assessment at this point. Instead, 2 housing officers carried out a home visit 2 days later. The landlord then closed the case 17 days later. This Service has seen no evidence that it liaised with the mental health team prior to closing the case which could have put residents at further risk.
The landlord failed to update the resident throughout the time that the ASB case was active. The resident had to call it on numerous occasions for an update which cost her time and trouble.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it can offer awards of £250-£700 as a remedy where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration with no permanent impact on the resident. This aligns with this Service’s remedies guidance. An example of when this can be awarded is “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy– for example in antisocial behaviour cases”. However, the landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to pay £700 compensation to the resident to reflect the distress caused by it not acting in accordance with its’ policy.
Due to the failures identified there has been maladministration in the landlords handling of the ASB case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of low water pressure and request for a new bathroom.

Social housing landlords are required to ensure that their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. A property fails to meet this standard (and therefore the Regulator of Social Housing’s ‘Home Standard’) if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less.
2. A bathroom which is 30 years old or less.
3. A kitchen with adequate space and layout.
4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC.
5. Adequate external noise insulation.
6. Adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
The bathroom in the property became 30 years old in 2022. However, this Service has not seen evidence that the property lacked any of the other facilities. The landlord said that the bathroom was in a reasonable condition and therefore it’s decision not to replace it sooner was reasonable.
The main reason that the resident wanted a replacement bathroom was so that she had access to a shower. There is no statutory obligation for the landlord to carry out improvement works so it acted reasonably by not providing a shower.
However, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep in good repair and working order, the structure of the property and installations for water and space heating. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete appointed routine repairs within 28 calendar days maximum.
The resident told the landlord about the low water pressure on 22 June 2022. The landlord told her that it would raise a repairs request after 1 July 2022. However, it did not raise a repairs request until 3 October 2022. This failure to adhere to its policy and keep its promise meant that there was an unreasonable delay in responding to the resident’s request. However, the contractor advised that the resident had asked them not to attend because she had reported it previously and a surveyor had told her there was nothing that could be done. The resident has confirmed this. Therefore, because of this and because the landlord had investigated the issue in the past, the landlord’s delay in logging the repair did not adversely affect her.[SW1]
The resident advised this Service that the landlord told her that it would replace the bathroom in 2020 and 2021 and that other residents in the block had bathrooms replaced before her. However, as she did not include this in her complaint the landlord has not responded to these allegations and therefore, they are not part of this investigation.
Taking all the above into account, there has been no maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of low water pressure and request for replacement bathroom.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlords complaint policy states that “when a customer makes a formal complaint, a complaint resolution officer will contact them within 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint….within 10 working days we will aim to notify the customer of our decision”. These timescales align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord took 26 working days to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint and a further 15 working days to provide a full response. This delay and failure to follow its policy delayed the resident’s access to an investigation by this Service.
Despite the landlord calling the resident so that it could fully understand the reason for her complaint and the resolution she was seeking, it did not consider this when it provided the complaint responses. It knew that she wanted it to investigate how it had handled the ASB case. It also knew that she felt vulnerable and unprotected by the landlord, but it did not address either of these issues. It merely advised her that it had closed the ASB case and to report any further occurrences. This failure caused the resident further distress and cost her time and trouble because she had to contact this Service for a resolution.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time (the Code) states that the complaint handler must consider all information and evidence carefully.
The stage 1 and stage 2 complaints responses contained different information regarding the outcome of the repairs log for low water pressure. The stage 1 response said that the resident had asked the contractor not to attend and the stage 2 response said that its repairs team had investigated in October 2022 and found no issues. The landlord was unable to provide this Service with evidence that it had attended in October 2022. The complaint handler failed to make sure that the information given in the stage 2 complaint response corresponded with the stage 1 response. This inaccuracy and complaint handling failure undermined the resident’s faith in the complaints process.
The landlord addressed the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement letter to the neighbour that the resident had reported for ASB. This error caused distress to the resident because she would not have known if the letter had been sent to him as well. The landlord failed to address this or apologise to the resident in its complaint responses. This failure caused the resident further distress.
The Code also said that “any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.”
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it would “send the case to the housing team to let them know how you feel and to see what further support we can offer”. The resident advised this Service that she did not receive an offer of support at this stage and was not contacted by the housing team. This failure to follow the code and ensure that it kept its promise was a complaint handling failure that caused the resident further distress.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that awards of £50 to £250 can be used “for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.” Examples of this include “incorrectly addressing correspondence (so as to cause offence/upset, but not a breach of data protection requirements).” As previously stated, it can also award up to £700 if there has been failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy. However, the landlord offered no compensation for its failure to adhere to its complaints policy or for misaddressing the stage 1 complaint. An order to pay £300 for these has therefore been made.
Due to the landlord’s failure to follow procedure, lack of accuracy, failure to ensure that an offer of redress was actioned and lack of an offer of compensation, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB case.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of low water pressure and request for a replacement bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must provide proof of compliance with the following orders:
1. Pay the resident directly a total of £1,000 in compensation. This is broken down below.
  1. £700 for the distress caused by a failure to follow policy and provide referrals for support during its management of the ASB case.
  2. £300 for distress caused by the complaint handling failures.
2. Apologise. A senior member of staff must apologise to the resident for the failings in this case.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review of this case conducted by a senior manager to ensure:
1. That it follows its compensation and complaints policies and monitors all offers of redress.
2. It follows its ASB policy.

The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.

[SW1]I’m not sure I agree with this assessment. Regardless of the tenants comments, the landlord should still have investigated low water pressure complaints. It shouldn’t have closed it because of the tenants comments. I would say this was a service failing.