Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited (202337945)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337945

Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited

24 Feburary 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours.
2. Request for a management move.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began in January 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor of a mid-rise block. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, during her correspondence for this case, the resident advised the landlord and this Service that she has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The resident wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in August 2023. It is not clear when the letter was sent but the landlord received it on 29 August 2023. The resident requested a meeting concerning a management move, safeguarding and her tenancy. She said she felt uncomfortable raising matters with her housing officer following a call in which the housing officer was “aggressive and threatening” and would not allow her to speak. She added some matters she wished to disclose were of “an extremely delicate nature” and she did not wish to discuss them with the housing officer given the history. She asked the landlord to confirm when an in-person meeting could take place.
The landlord’s CEO wrote the resident on 30 August 2023. They explained they had referred the matter to a specific member of staff who would be in contact with the resident to arrange an appointment and listen to her concerns. The landlord confirmed that it would follow up with that member of staff.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 26 January 2024, explaining the landlord did not deal with the issues she raised. She set out that her complaint was about the following matters:
1. Both she and her daughter were “terrified” to leave the property due to the threat of violence and further trauma. This affected their mental health and triggered the resident’s PTSD. Her daughter had been sexually assaulted, and her ex-partner had been stabbed.
2. The neighbours had tried to break into her property many times. The neighbour’s dog had also chased after the resident and her daughter attempting to bite them.
3. The landlord had failed to fix locks which meant the property was being used as a drug base.
Following intervention by this Service, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 April 2024. It said:
1. It understood the resident had made serious allegations of sexual assault involving her daughter and her neighbour. It had contacted the police with details of the allegations and the reference numbers the resident provided to it. The police had taken no further action on the basis of a lack of evidence. This had been communicated to both the resident and her ex-partner.
2. As there was no evidence to support the complaint, it was unable to uphold the complaint or provide a management transfer at that time.
3. It had attempted to provide further support to the resident with a meeting arranged with her housing officer. This was cancelled by the resident. The option to reschedule a meeting was available to the resident. It also provided her with a housing transfer application form, and it encouraged her to register with Home Swapper.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 May 2024 to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord’s response contained incorrect information, including that police had been called out to the property. She added the assault was not carried out by her neighbour but another party. The issues with her neighbour concerned “gas fired guns” which were used on her daughter. The resident provided documentation which showed this incident took place on 16 July 2023. She said she would provide the evidence to support her complaint as the landlord had failed to seek it.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024. It noted the resident’s concerns relating to safeguarding concerns as well as her request for a management transfer. The landlord said the resident felt it was being “untruthful” and that “there are still a lot of repair issues outstanding as well as ongoing ASB”. It said:
1. In relation to the outstanding repairs and ASB, a residents’ meeting was held on 23 April 2024 that everyone in the block was invited to attend. Following on from this, an action plan was circulated to all residents of the next steps. Since the meeting, the landlord had repaired the locks on the bike shed and gate (although it had been made aware this had since been broken again).
2. In relation to the sexual assault allegation, the resident had discussed the matter over the phone with it in September 2023 and informed it of an incident which occurred in 2019. Following the stage 1 response, the resident had provided no further evidence to support her complaint. Similarly, no evidence had been provided about her management transfer application. Therefore, it was unable to uphold the complaint.
The resident referred the matter to this Service on 29 May 2024. She said the landlord had provided conflicting information about the nature of her meeting with it in September 2023 in its responses. She added she had supplied a number of documents to it, including a number of police references. Despite this, it had referred to incorrect information relating to the parties involved in the assault on her daughter. The resident set out that she no longer wanted to be a tenant of the landlord, and she now wanted compensation for the “extreme trauma, neglect, gaslighting, lack of duty of care and slander”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her communication to both this Service and the landlord, the resident has referred to a sexual assault on her daughter in 2019 as well as another incident of assault which took place in July 2023. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s comment that the landlord incorrectly referred to the wrong party (her neighbour) as having carried out the first assault in 2019, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this incident as part of this complaint. The Ombudsman is only able to investigate matters which were raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time, which is usually 12 months of when the incident occurred. The alleged sexual assault occurred in April 2019. The evidence provided to this Service shows the resident did not raise the issue with the landlord until August/September 2023. This was more than 12 months after the incident occurred. Therefore, this investigation will not consider that incident, nor other issues such as the stabbing of her partner which occurred in 2021 and were again not raised with the landlord within 12 months of them occurring. The report has referred to the allegation of sexual assault by way of background, and will consider the second incident relating to the “gas fired guns” which occurred in July 2023.
The resident has mentioned that both she and her daughter suffered extreme trauma and that she felt the landlord’s actions triggered her PTSD. The Ombudsman understands that the events described by the resident would have been extremely distressing. However, while we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or the effects of damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Policies

The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB 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.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out its priority levels, timeframes for responses to reports of ASB, and definitions and examples of each. These include:
1. Priority 1 (response time of within 24 hours) – threats to life, actual or serious threat of violence, illegal use of premises including drug manufacture/drug dens, and dangerous dogs.
2. Priority 2 (response time of within 5 days) – one-off aggressive/abusive behaviour/minor physical violence, minor intimidation/harassment, verbal abuse/threatening behaviour, dangerous dogs and uncontrolled animals.
3. Priority 3 (response time of within 10 days) – neighbour disputes, pet and animal nuisance, and misuse of communal areas/loitering.
The ASB policy sets out how the landlord will manage reports of ASB. It states that it will:
1. Assess incidents involving threats of violence within 1 working day and all other incidents within 5 or 10 working days.
2. Use a risk assessment matrix to help identify vulnerable individuals.
3. Identify vulnerable tenants and perpetrators and measure the risks in order that the most appropriate action can be taken to protect them.
4. Create action plans to solve ASB issues.
5. Keep those reporting ASB informed of progress in their case, including agreeing a method and frequency of contact.
6. Train staff to deal with ASB effectively.
The ASB policy sets out:
1. In the first instance, in cases where incidents of nuisance or ASB are low level, residents are asked to try to resolve the issue directly with the perpetrator.
2. Residents should provide timely reports. Any ASB reports should be made within 6 months of the incident giving rise to the ASB having occurred.
3. Residents should report criminal behaviour and/or activity to the police.
4. The landlord will close cases where it does not receive supporting evidence. This includes situations where there are no reported incidents for at least 3 months.
The ASB policy states that the landlord will “take prompt and appropriate action to deal with ASB at an early stage” and “work with perpetrators of ASB to get them to moderate their behaviour”. It adds that the early interventions it uses include verbal and written warnings and mediation. If these are not effective, the landlord will act in accordance with the rights and obligations as set out in the lease/tenancy agreement. This could include an injunction, notice of seeking possession, and/or demotion of tenancy.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and issue a response within a further 10 working days. If it needs additional time at either stage, it will let the resident know and agree a revised date. This should not exceed a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out a number of criteria under which it will consider paying compensation. This includes if:
1. It was negligent in its service delivery.
2. It acted unreasonably.
3. The resident suffered a loss or inconvenience.
The landlord’s management move policy sets out that the landlord will offer a management move “where it is proven, via sufficient evidence, that the location of the current home is having a severe detrimental effect on the person/s life and well-being and that a home move is the only viable option to significantly reduce the risk of harm towards the individual/family”.
The management move policy says that “requests will be considered and awarded as a last resort where it is deemed (along with other professional agencies) that the tenant(s) in question have no other reasonable alternative other than to be moved from their current home to safeguard their lives”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbours

The landlord was first alerted to the issue of ASB by the resident following her contacting it in August 2023. The resident’s initial correspondence did not set out in detail what her concerns were. However, it explained that the matters were of a sensitive nature. The landlord acted appropriately by setting out that a specified named member of staff would be contacting the resident to listen to her concerns. Given the resident’s reluctance to discuss the matter with her housing officer, this was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take. The correspondence from the landlord provided a timescale by which it would be in touch with the resident. Again, this was appropriate.
It has not been disputed by either party that a conversation did take place between the resident and the landlord following her raising the matter. However, the nature of the communication – as well as the content of what was discussed at the time – are in dispute. The landlord said in its formal responses to the resident that a meeting took place, and the resident disclosed details of the sexual assault on her daughter which it investigated. The resident stated no meeting took place and that the communication with the landlord was by phone.
The landlord informed the Ombudsman that the member of staff who spoke to the resident at the time did not take notes and that they no longer worked for it. Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlords’ services. This has not been the case in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. These recording failures amount to a serious failing on the part of the landlord and a missed opportunity by it to ensure it correctly recorded the resident’s concerns. There is no evidence to show that, following its communication with the resident, the landlord contacted her in writing to set out its understanding of the concerns she was raising. This was unsatisfactory.
The landlord’s records show that it contacted the police in relation to the allegations made by the resident. This was not limited to the allegation of sexual assault against the resident’s daughter. The landlord’s approach was appropriate given the nature of the issues which were being raised, and it was in keeping with its ASB policy which said it worked in conjunction with other agencies when looking at issues of ASB. Following a response from the police setting out it could not locate any information based on what the landlord provided, additional information (reference numbers) was supplied and the police responded to that request setting out its response to the issues the resident raised. The landlord’s omission to provide sufficient information in the first instance therefore delayed the receipt of an update. The police’s response was that a community resolution was issued for 2 of the issues the resident mentioned, and no further action was taken in respect of the sexual assault after a long investigation.
While the landlord acted appropriately in following up on these matters with the police, there is no evidence that it communicated this back to the resident at the time. Instead, it only provided its response several months after the resident contacted the Ombudsman in January 2024. By the time the landlord issued its stage 1 response, the resident had raised a number of other incidents when the police attended as well as providing a statement from a police officer who was aware of some of the issues. Despite the resident having mentioned further incidents, the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses did not address these further instances. The landlord also apparently did not contact the police again to ask it about the more recent incidents. This was inappropriate, as having all relevant information would have allowed it to address the current situation and level of risk more accurately.
The further incidents reported by the resident included the alleged perpetrators putting a video involving her daughter on social media in early 2024. As a result of that incident, the resident’s social worker and the headteacher at her daughter’s school wrote reports asking the landlord to look into moving the resident. By not investigating these new issues, this was a failing by the landlord. Instead, its formal responses were limited to the issues raised by the resident several months earlier, which was inadequate.
The resident said that, as the police issued community resolutions, this supported her assertion that ASB took place. It is noted that community resolutions are generally issued to first-time offenders for less serious offences and give the perpetrator the opportunity of a second chance. Their use in this case did not equate to a caution, conviction or criminal record. Nevertheless, the landlord should have responded to the resident on this point, having regard to the full circumstances of her case.
The landlord’s omission to follow up on the further instances of ASB raised by the resident after August 2023 caused her a degree of distress and inconvenience, as well as leading her to believe the landlord did not fully investigate her concerns. Similarly, the landlord did not address the discrepancies which the resident raised with it between its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. Instead, it simply ignored the resident’s concerns about this. This was a failing by it.
In summary, the landlord’s failings in not addressing the resident’s further concerns (post August 2023), not making a contemporaneous record of its communication with the resident in September 2023, and not responding to the police with further information from the resident, amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman has made an award of £200 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. Our award is not directly linked to the landlord’s compensation policy, which does not provide guideline amounts for the applicable circumstances.

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

The resident requested that the landlord move her via a management move due to the ASB and threats made to her and her daughter. She said that the issues affected their mental health and that she and her daughter were frightened of leaving the property due to risk of further harm. The resident has recently stated she is no longer seeking a management move. However, this decision was made following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. While the resident is entitled to change her position on the matter, this report has looked at the landlord’s handling of the matter up to the time it completed its internal complaints procedure in May 2024.
The landlord’s management move policy from October 2024 – which is the version of the policy the landlord has provided to this Service – sets out that a management move will only be considered when all other options have been exhausted or are considered inappropriate in the circumstances. A number of criteria are also required to be met for a management move to be considered, including supporting evidence from a professional agency in addition to evidence from the police.
The management move policy sets out that once a move request is approved by the landlord, the case will be allocated a priority tier (banding) and added to the direct let spreadsheet. There are 2 bands available: priority 1 and 2. Priority 1 relates to people fleeing domestic abuse, immediate risk of serious harm/threat to life, and hate crimes. Priority 2 covers welfare/medical needs as well as historical sex offences, although this can in some circumstances be increased to priority 1.
The landlord lists its properties online. All eligible residents can bid for them using the banding priority the landlord provides. A qualifying resident would be made 1 offer of a suitable direct let. The landlord’s policy says that if the resident refuses this, it will consider revoking the banding award.
In this case, the landlord stated the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move. It explained that she failed to provide it evidence to support her request for the move.
In her complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has explained at length how her current living situation has impacted on her and her family’s health and wellbeing. There is evidence that she has frequently called the police about a number of different issues. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether a landlord has acted reasonably in the circumstances of the complaint. It is not to substitute our own decisions for the landlord’s. That means that one of the things we have considered is how the landlord addressed the supporting details the resident provided to it.
While the landlord stated in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses that the resident did not provide evidence to support her management move, it failed to take into account the numerous communications following the incident involving the resident’s daughter in February 2024. As well as the resident’s own direct reports, she provided correspondence from her social worker and the headteacher of her daughter’s school, who both recommended that the family was moved out of their property. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered this information in its decision making, which was a failing by it.
Taking all matters into account, the Ombudsman find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move. This is because it failed to act in accordance with its management move policy when presented with evidence from professional agencies following the incident in February 2024. The Ombudsman has made an award of £200 in relation to the matter, which is again in keeping with our remedies guidance. This is because there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman has also made a further order for the landlord to relook at the issue of the management move.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident contacted the landlord’s CEO directly when she raised concerns about reporting the issues to her housing officer. The landlord replied to the resident upon receiving her undated correspondence on 30 August 2023, setting out that the matter would be looked at by a specified member of staff. As previously highlighted in paragraph 22 of this report, this was an appropriate step for it to take. It correctly provided a timescale within which it would be in touch to discuss the resident’s concerns. However, while the landlord did contact the resident and make enquiries with the police, there is no evidence that it responded to the resident following the initial communication with her. This was poor customer service, and unsatisfactory.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made” and confirms that a complainant does not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for their communication to be treated as one. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to treat the resident’s email to its CEO as a complaint, or at least to confirm with the resident whether she wished it to do so. In any case, its failure to address the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of aspects of her case may have contributed to her feeling the need to approach our Service in early 2024.
We wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2024 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 9 April 2024. While the landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 3 April 2024 in line with its complaints policy, stating it would provide its response by 9 April 2024, it failed to meet this deadline. It appropriately informed both the resident and the Ombudsman on 9 April 2024 that it required additional time and it would reply by 12 April 2024. However, although the landlord did respond on 12 April 2024, the response was addressed to this Service rather than the resident. This was a failing by it.
The landlord only issued a stage 1 response to the resident on 29 April 2024, containing almost all of the same information as the letter of 12 April 2024, after receiving further contact from this Service. This was 17 days after the deadline which it provided to the resident, and outside the timescales contained in its complaints policy. There is also no evidence it wrote to the resident in the meantime to explain the reasons for the delay in its response. This was a display of poor communication, and unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 in keeping with its complaints policy. While it provided its response within the timescales it set out to the resident, the response failed to take into account the concerns the resident raised on 13 May 2024 regarding inaccuracies in its stage 1 response. The stage 2 response also made reference to the resident having made the complaint on 10 May 2024, which was not the case. The stage 2 response was apparently sent by post to the resident, and she initially informed the Ombudsman that she had not received it. While the correspondence is addressed correctly to the resident, it is not clear why the landlord did not send this by email, especially as it had been sending the acknowledgements and other correspondence by this means. This was a missed opportunity by it to ensure the resident received the response promptly.
The Ombudsman notes that the stage 2 investigation was carried out by the same member of senior staff who had been asked by the CEO several months earlier to speak to the resident (in September 2023). While that individual was not involved in the stage 1 response, given the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s recollection of information from that conversation, it would have been considered good practice for it to have arranged a fully independent review at stage 2. This would have assured the resident of its impartiality. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that “any complaint proceeding to the second stage will be reviewed by a manager … from an independent service to the officer who investigated the complaint”. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) also says complaint handlers should act independently and take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest.
In summary, the landlord did not treat the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint when it was originally raised with the CEO in August 2023. It failed to provide its stage 1 response within the extended timescale that it agreed, and initially omitted to send the response to the resident. It did not send the stage 2 response via email, which meant there was a delay in the resident receiving it, and did not take measures to ensure an independent party investigated the complaint at stage 2. Taken together, these failures amount to maladministration. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out the level of award it would make in the event of a complaint handling failure. The Service has therefore made an award of £150, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbours.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
3. Complaints handling.

Orders

Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £550. This is made up of:
  1. £200 for its failures in its handling of her reports of ASB.
  2. £200 for its failure in its handling of her request for a management move.
  3. £150 for its failures in its complaints handling.
3. Contact the resident to obtain further information about incidents of ASB from September 2023 onwards and the current situation. The landlord should then take action in accordance with its ASB policy, where appropriate and in agreement with the resident.
Within the next 6 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to reconsider the resident’s request for a management move, if she still wishes it to do so, taking into account all of the evidence provided to it, including from third parties. If necessary, it should request an update from relevant parties on the current position. Following consideration of the evidence it should write to the resident and to this Service with its decision on the matter.