Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202417572)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417572

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

24 February 2025

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:

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement which started on 1 March 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom, first floor flat. The resident’s weekly rent is inclusive of service charges.
The housing records confirm the resident has mobility issues. She also told the landlord she had post traumatic syndrome disorder (PTSD). Her psychiatrist told the landlord on 21 November 2023 that she had chronic health conditions and been diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder, anxiety and depressive disorder.
The landlord conducted a review in October 2023 into its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB following the conclusion of a previous complaint. This noted that it failed to log ASB reports made by the resident or keep her updated. It said it would provide staff with training on record keeping and offered the resident £300 compensation.
The resident’s psychiatric nurse told the landlord on 17 August 2023 that the ASB was causing her anxiety and mental distress. Her psychiatrist told the landlord on 21 November 2023 that the ASB had triggered the resident’s traumatic symptoms.
An occupational therapist (OT) assessment was completed on 19 April 2024. This concluded the resident’s property was not suitable for her needs and she was at high risk of falling and serious injury. It was recommended the resident moved to a 2-bedroomed property.
The resident made a complaint on 31 May 2024 and said the standard of communal cleaning in the block was poor and she experienced ASB including noise nuisance and cannabis misuse. She asked the landlord to refund her the service charges she had paid over the last 3 years for the communal cleaning and to address her concerns about the ongoing ASB.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 June 2024 and said:
1. Its contractor cleaned the block every week and the sign in sheet was up to date. The local housing team also completed monthly checks of the building and no concerns had been identified.
2. It would not issue a refund given the cleaning service was delivered to a suitable standard and because the resident’s weekly rent was inclusive of service charges.
3. The local housing team had not witnessed any cannabis use when visiting the building. The action it could take was limited given no perpetrators had been identified. The resident should report incidents as and when they occurred.
4. It would continue to visit the block on a monthly basis and at other times as part of its formal investigation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 July 2024 and said the landlord was charging her for a service which it did not provide. She noted the carpet in the lobby had been contaminated with bodily fluids and rubbish was dumped outside the building. She also said the landlord had failed to investigate her reports of ASB and overlooked her rehousing request when allocating properties. She asked the landlord for a breakdown of her service charges and details of the cleaning schedule. She also requested the landlord provide her with details about the noise app and for a multi-agency review to take place regarding her reports of ASB.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 31 July 2024 and said:
1. The local housing team had completed monthly checks of the building and the cleaning contractor advised to report any incidents to the landlord, including the smell of cannabis.
2. It had liaised with the police given the resident’s concerns and it was established there had been no recent reports of ASB. It would continue to liaise with the police and ensure the resident was kept updated. It would arrange to meet the resident to agree the next steps. The resident could also ask the council to undertake an ASB case review.
3. It should have provided the resident with details about the schedule for cleaning the communal carpets when requested. A deep clean was completed once a year and was last done on 19 February 2024
4. Whilst some staining was identified on the carpet in the communal area during a recent visit, it was considered to be in a fair state of repair given its location and the level of use. It would arrange for the carpet to be cleaned again given the resident’s concerns.
5. It had arranged for the bin store to be cleaned given it did not meet required standards.
6. It had previously agreed to move the resident to a suitable 1 or 2–bedroom property. Two offers of accommodation had been made, but these were refused by the resident as they were considered unsuitable.
7. There were a limited number of suitable properties in the resident’s area of choice and none of the 16 homes that became available from March 2023 onwards were suitable. It would contact the resident when suitable properties became available and send her details once a month confirming what properties were available.
8. Given the limited availability of homes, it recommended the resident contacted the council to ensure she was correctly banded on the rehousing waiting list and to check the availability of homes managed by other landlords.
9. It would offer £300 compensation given it did not take a proactive approach to try and prevent some of the issues raised by the resident and for its communication.

Post complaint events

The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 31 July 2024. She said the ASB was ongoing and the landlord had done nothing to address her concerns. She also noted the landlord had not provided her with a copy of the cleaning schedule or acted on the recommendations made by the OT. As a result, she said she missed out on opportunities to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In considering the landlord’s response to the complaint, it is noted that the resident has referred to a possible impact upon her health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that this Service is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

Whilst it is noted the resident said she had been reporting problems with ASB and noise nuisance for several years, this assessment focuses on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when she made a complaint in May 2024 until when the landlord issued its final complaint response in July 2024
It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported ASB occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
On receipt of reports of alleged ASB, this Service expects landlords to gather evidence to establish if the behaviour is unreasonable and if it constitutes ASB. This ensures landlords meet their obligations and take appropriate and proportionate action, if required. This should include using the powers available to it, including mediation, signposting to other agencies and enforcement action, where appropriate.
The tenancy agreement states residents must not cause a nuisance or annoyance to anyone in the local area. The landlord’s definition of ASB includes unreasonable noise levels and using the property for illegal purposes.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will:
1. Complete a risk assessment when a resident reports ASB. High and medium risk cases are contacted within 2 working days. All other cases are responded to within 5 working days. Risk assessments are updated as the case develops
2. Agree an action plan with the resident, including setting out next steps and the frequency of updates
3. Gather evidence and provide the resident with access to technology such as a noise app or noise monitoring equipment
4. Take informal and formal action to resolve ASB. Any action taken will be reasonable and proportionate
5. Work closely with partner agencies, including the police to find suitable resolutions to ASB
The resident told the landlord on 1 November 2023 that other residents in the block were smoking cannabis and someone had stolen a parcel that had been left in the communal entrance for her. The landlord noted that the majority of the issues raised by the resident were historic and said it was difficult to evidence if someone was smoking cannabis unless it was physically witnessed. The landlord asked the resident to submit evidence and said it would contact the police. This was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to meet the resident in May 2024 following reports of cannabis use and arguments in a neighbouring property, although it is unclear from the housing records when this took place. The landlord confirmed on 30 May 2024 that it would investigate the resident’s concerns. This was consistent with its ASB policy.
The resident told the landlord on 31 May 2024 that there were ongoing issues with noise nuisance and cannabis misuse in the block. She told the landlord on 5 June 2024 that there were parties in the early hours of the morning and she was unable to use the rooms in her home due to the smell of cannabis. She also sent the landlord a number of videos. The landlord responded on the same day and said it would contact the police. This was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy and demonstrated it took a multi-agency approach.
Whilst the landlord said it would complete a risk assessment, there is no evidence this was done. Risk assessments form part of statutory guidance which accompanies the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014. This says landlords should assess the risk of harm to the victim, along with any potential vulnerabilities, at the time it receives an ASB report. This should then guide the actions the landlord takes. The landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment meant it failed to understand the resident’s concerns or the impact the situation was having on her. It also meant the landlord did not give consideration to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord did not agree an action plan with the resident. This was a further failure and meant the resident was unclear on what action was being taken by the landlord to address her concerns. Agreeing an action plan helps landlords to manage residents’ expectations and keep them informed about the progress of the case. It also supports landlords to make clear and consistent decisions and ensure staff are aware of the approach it is taking.
The landlord told the resident on 7 June 2024 that a member of staff would contact her regarding her recent reports of ASB. It also noted it would take action if the identity of the perpetrators were established. Whilst this provided clarity, there is no evidence the resident was contacted. This was a failure. The landlord also failed to offer the resident information about the noise app or details about noise monitoring equipment. This was not consistent with its ASB policy and meant the landlord did not use the early intervention tools available to it to gather evidence.
The landlord told the resident on 14 June 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that no evidence of cannabis use was identified by staff when visiting the building. It said its actions were limited in the absence of any evidence and asked the resident to report incidents that occurred. This was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy as it is unable to take any formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour was serious and prolonged. The landlord did not address the resident’s reports of noise nuisance or the stolen parcel. This was a further failure.
The resident told the landlord on 8 July 2024 that other residents living in the block were ‘‘dangerous’’ and could cause her ‘‘significant harm”. She said her life would be at risk if she shared information with the landlord and noted that it knew who the ‘‘problematic tenants’’ were. She asked the landlord why she had not been given access to noise monitoring equipment or a multi-agency meeting held to address her concerns. She noted the landlord’s CCTV equipment should have captured the person responsible for vandalising the security door.
The landlord visited the block on 26 July 2024. This demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for her. It confirmed the communal front door was secure and no evidence of cannabis smells were found. It also recommended the resident was invited to a walkabout, although the offer was later declined by her.
The police confirmed on 30 July 2024 that the CCTV system was working effectively and the level of security was suitable for the building. It was also noted the rear door had been left ajar and it was recommended notices were put up in the communal area reminding residents to only allow authorised entry into the building.
The landlord told the resident on 31 July 2024 in its final complaint response that its staff and cleaning contractor regularly visited the block. It also said it had been liaising with the police who noted there had been no recent reports of ASB. The landlord said it would arrange to meet the resident to discuss her concerns and agree the next steps, including sending a letter to all of the residents living in the block. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
It also told the resident to report ASB that occurred outside working hours to the police and she could ask the council to undertake a review if she remained unhappy. This demonstrated the landlord was being transparent and acted in accordance with its ASB policy.
In summary, the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence and liaised with the police. It did not, however, complete a risk assessment or agree an action plan with the resident. Neither did it offer advice on the noise app or noise monitoring equipment. It is evident the situation caused the resident distress. She told the landlord on a number of occasions she was unable to sleep because of the smell of cannabis and noise. She also said the situation caused her severe emotional distress.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the failures in its response to the reports of ASB and offered £300 compensation. The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable, because it was consistent with our guidance on remedies where there has been an adverse impact.
Therefore, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning

It is not this Service’s role to determine liability or the reasonableness of service charges as this falls within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). We have, however, investigated whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building including the maintenance of communal areas and the cleaning of outside communal areas. Residents are responsible for cleaning communal areas they share with other tenants if they are not charged a service charge for cleaning. The resident’s weekly rent is inclusive of service charges.
The landlord’s neighbourhood policy says it will:
1. carry out regular inspections to ensure internal and external communal areas are safe, clean and well maintained. Internal communal areas are inspected monthly
2. provide clear and relevant information about the standard of service
3. work with partners to ensure there are sufficient recycling facilities and arrange for fly tipping to be removed
The landlord’s communal cleaning schedule says its contractor will maintain a satisfactory standard of cleaning in blocks of flats. This includes vacuuming communal carpets and washing surfaces, although no timescales are included on the attendance schedule. Carpets are deep cleaned once a year and bin areas swept fortnightly.
The resident told the landlord on 31 May 2024 that the standard of communal cleaning in the block was poor and queried why this was not picked up during the block inspections. She said pets used the communal areas as a toilet and there were ‘‘bodily fluids throughout the block.’’ She asked the landlord to refund the service charges she had paid over the last 3 years for communal cleaning.
The landlord responded on 7 June 2024 and noted it would continue to carry out block inspections at least once a month. It also said it reported issues to its cleaning contractor as soon as it was made aware there was a problem. Whilst this provided clarity, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear on what actions were being taken by the landlord.
The landlord told the resident on 14 June 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that the block was cleaned once a week and checked every month as part of its block inspection programme. It also confirmed no issues had been identified with the standard of cleaning during the inspections. When concerns where identified, these were reported and addressed. The landlord said it would not refund the resident’s service charges given the cleaning service was delivered to a suitable standard and because her rent was an affordable rent, inclusive of service charges. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations.
The resident reported issues with the cleanliness of the communal area and bin store on a number of occasions in June 2024. The landlord carried out a block inspection and identified there were no issues with the cleaning standard. It arranged for rubbish to be removed from the bin store and for the area to be cleaned. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and consistent with its neighbourhood policy.
The resident told the landlord on 8 July 2024 that the communal carpet had not been deep cleaned since 2021 and the bin stores were “a mess.” She also said there was rubbish around the building and the monthly inspections were insufficient. The resident suggested the communal carpet should be cleaned every week and more frequent inspections carried out.
The landlord responded on 12 July 2024 and said it had arranged for the bin store to be cleaned again and for a dumped mattress to be removed. It confirmed on 17 July 2024 that it would arrange for the carpet to be cleaned. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the block on 26 July 2024 and confirmed the communal carpet was in good condition, although it was stained in a number of areas. It was also noted the bin store was in a poor condition with a number of rubbish bags left on the bins. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the carpet and bin store to be cleaned.
The landlord told the resident on 31 July 2024 in its final complaint response that the communal carpet was deep cleaned once a year and this was last done on 19 February 2024. This provided clarity. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to clean the carpet and arrange for the bin store to be cleaned given the concerns raised by the resident. It also invited the resident to attend a block inspection so that she could share her concerns with staff. This demonstrated it was resolution focused and wanted to put things right for her.
In summary, the landlord carried out block inspections and arranged for issues to be addressed once identified. It also provided the resident with details about the cleaning schedule, arranged for additional cleaning to be undertaken and confirmed its position regarding her service charge. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move

It is not this Service’s role to determine whether the resident should be rehoused. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord operates a choice based letting system, with priority given to applicants deemed to be in the most housing need by the council. The majority of the landlord’s empty homes are let through this system. The landlord also sets aside a number of properties to enable its residents to move home. Whilst most of these properties are offered to residents identified as being in the greatest housing need, the landlord also makes direct offers to residents who need to move urgently. These offers are called management moves and 1 offer of accommodation is made.
The landlord’s adaptations policy says it will liaise with residents to ensure it understands their needs, identify appropriate homes as they become available and agree adaptations required. An assessment is carried out by an OT and recommendations made to the landlord. Residents who need to move for medical reasons are required to complete a medical assessment form and provide evidence to support their application.
The landlord discussed rehousing options with the resident on 1 November 2023. This included noting that it did not have many suitable properties in her areas of choice and that she may need to consider other areas. It also said it may not be able to offer accommodation in a small block of flats given most of its accommodation was in larger blocks. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. The resident told the landlord she did not want to widen her choice of areas as she needed to live close to family and friends.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident help completing her rehousing application form and note that it would contact her as soon as a property became available. This demonstrated it was sensitive to her circumstances.
A housing application form was completed on 1 November 2023 and a housing needs assessment carried out by the local authority on 14 December 2023. This confirmed the resident’s property was not suitable for her needs given she was unable to manage the stairs. It was recommended the resident moved to a ground floor property or one that could be adapted to include a stairlift and level access shower.
An OT assessment was completed on 19 April 2024. This concluded the property was not suitable for the resident’s needs and she was at high risk of falling and serious injury. It was recommended the resident was rehoused into a 2-bedroomed property. The type of property was not specified by the OT.
The landlord agreed on 30 May 2024 to provide the resident with a list of all the properties it owned, how many became available to let and how many applicants were ahead of her in the rehousing queue. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this given the resident wanted reassuring that her housing application was not being overlooked. This demonstrated the landlord was sensitive to the resident’s circumstances and wanted to put things right for her.
The landlord offered the resident a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat on 4 June 2024. This was consistent with the recommendations made by the OT. It said the property was in a small development and comprised of 6 flats, with a communal entrance. The offer was refused by the resident on 5 June 2024. She said she did not want to live in a ‘’flat complex’’ and said she needed a bungalow or a property that could be adapted.
The landlord confirmed on 7 June 2024 that it did not have any bungalows in the resident’s areas of choice. It agreed it would offer her a 2–bedroom house rather than a flat. This demonstrated the landlord was resolution focused and wanted to put things right for the resident. The landlord also confirmed that no suitable properties had become available to let since March 2023. It also said the new property would need to be adapted to meet the resident’s needs and she had agreed this would be done after she moved in. This ensured it managed the resident’s expectations.
The resident told the landlord on 8 July 2024 that she had missed out on potential properties because it was only considering her for 1-bedroom flats. She also said the landlord had failed to keep her updated.
The landlord confirmed on 31 July 2024 in its final complaint response that it had agreed to move the resident to a 1 or 2-bedroom property once one became available in her areas of choice. The landlord also reconfirmed it had no bungalows in her areas of choice and had offered alternative accommodation, but this was declined by her. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to contact the council to ensure she was correctly banded on the rehousing waiting list and consider properties owned by other landlords given the limited availability of its own homes.
In summary, the landlord gave the resident advice on her housing options and offered her alternative accommodation in accordance with the OT recommendations. It also provided information about its stock, as requested by the resident. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move.

Recommendations

The landlord pays the resident the £300 compensation previously offered, if not already done so.