Clarion Housing Association Limited (202232472)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232472

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The resident’s complaint is about:

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) of a neighbour.
The resident’s request in April 2022 to be granted the tenancy for the flat below.
The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident occupied her four-bedroom, 1st and 2nd floor maisonette under an assured tenancy granted on 22 May 2000. She occupied it with her mother, husband, and adult children. The landlord did not report any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but she had reported health issues for family members during the complaint. The maisonette was situated in the two top floors of a converted property. There was a two-bedroom property on the ground floor which will be referred to as “GFF” in this report. It had been occupied by her neighbour who, the resident reported, had caused ASB over a number of years. Her neighbour will be referred to as “N”. N’s tenancy ended on 3 May 2022. The landlord relet the GFF in October 2022.

Legal and policy framework

3. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the resident had an obligation not to harass or allow members to cause nuisance and annoyance to any person residing in the locality of the premises. It is assumed this applied to N. No vulnerabilities were recorded for the resident.

4. The landlord’s current allocations policy (April 2023) states that

“Under the terms of the nomination agreements with our local authority partners we agree to allocate a percentage of (its) available homes in their area to households that the local council nominate to us… We will make sure that the correct percentage of available homes in an area is offered to the local authority for nominations. In areas where we hold our own housing register, when a home becomes available because a tenant (of the landlord) is transferring to another property (of the landlord), it will not be counted as it is not an additional vacancy, i.e. it is not a ‘true void’.”
“Occasionally there are exceptional circumstances that result in a tenant needing to move urgently and so we may agree to give the applicant priority. These types of transfers are called management transfers”.
“We can only try to assist tenants who are willing to move to an area where (the landlord) is able to allocate properties directly. In other areas where the local authority has 100% nomination rights we will refer the tenant to their local Council’s Homeless Persons Unit for assistance”.

5. The landlord’s management transfer policy set out that the landlord provides management transfers in circumstances where a resident is experiencing:

serious anti-social behaviour or harassment that puts their life at risk or;
domestic abuse that is putting or is likely to put the tenant or a member of their household’s life at risk.

6. According to the policy, management transfers should only be considered if the police confirm in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to the resident that means it is no longer safe for them to continue living at the property. There must also be a realistic chance of a suitable property becoming available.

Scope

7. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

8. Paragraph 42 of our Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (a) were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure, (b) were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising; and (c) seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.

9. On 26 January 2017, under Case No 201506511, this Service investigated the resident’s complaint that the landlord refused to grant her the tenancy to the GFF at the same time as she was allocated the maisonette and the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB by N. The Ombudsman found that the complaint about the grant of tenancy was outside our jurisdiction on the basis that the complaint related to events in 2000. It found service failure in relation to her reports of ASB. Our Service review of 15 June 2017 upheld this decision.

10. On 28 June 2018, this Service investigated a further complaint under Case No 201701353. This was found to be essentially a continuation of the previous complaint. It investigated events to 11 August 2017.

11. The resident raised a further complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of ASB and the landlord’s decision not to allocated the GFF to the resident. The landlord’s final response was made on 16 August 2018. The resident did not refer that complaint to this Service.

12. On 28 April 2020, the resident, through her solicitor, raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB and the landlord’s investigation, or lack of investigation, of alleged tenancy fraud by N. The landlord provided its Stage 2 response on 27 May 2000. It summarised the complaint as relating to subletting investigations, she wanted N to be evicted and for the resident to be offered the GFF. The resident did not refer that complaint to this Service.

13. In its letter 27 May 2020, the landlord stated that the landlord would not offer the GFF as it did not allow splitting of households into two separate properties, and it would not undertake the conversion of the property into one flat. It set out that it had tried to assist in addressing her housing needs.

14. On 27 January 2021, the resident made a complaint through her legal advisor that N had sublet the GFF, the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB and her request that the landlord offer her the GFF. This complaint was not referred to this Service.

15. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman deems that the resident’s complaints of 2020 and January 2021 are outside our jurisdiction as they were not referred to this Service within 12 months and it is now too late to do so as the Ombudsman does not consider it proportionate to investigate these complaints. This is because the resident’s claim of an offer of the GFF in 2000 and allegations of tenancy fraud have been addressed by our previous investigations in any event, and the events prior to 2021 are historical.

Scope of this report

16. The resident made a fresh complaint on 10 November 2021 which the resident has referred to this Service. The Ombudsman will therefore review events relating to the ASB from mid-2021. The resident made a further complaint about the handling of the proceedings (final response 4 May 2023) and requested an investigation, and to that extent, this report will refer to older events.

17. The resident renewed her request to the landlord after N moved out in May 2022 on the grounds of her ill-health as well as the overcrowding and the ASB. She also applied for a management move. In August 2022, the resident made a further complaint regarding her request for the GFF that had been declined after N moved out. While the Ombudsman does not reopen complaints, or investigate complaints that have already been investigated, this was a sufficient change of circumstances. This complaint will be investigated in this report. The resident made a number of complaints from November 2021 and through to 2022. Given there were missing responses and the complaints were similar, the Ombudsman has considered it fair to both parties to investigate all those complaints.

18. The chronology will refer to historical events in order to explain the context of the complaints being investigated.

Chronology

19. On 5 May 2000, the then landlord withdrew an offer for a “4 bed 8 person” from “ground to 3rd floor” because she required larger accommodation. The letter referred to the address of the maisonette, not the GFF. The family consisted of 3 adults and 4 children and required a 7-person 5 bed unit. On 10 May 2000, the local authority wrote to the resident that she had refused the offer and if she did so she would lose her place on the housing register. The maisonette was allocated to the resident. On 22 May 2000, the then landlord granted the tenancy to the resident as a 4 bed 8 persons unit on the 1st and 2nd floor. (2 adults and 5 children, 5th born on 9 May 2000). In August 2014, the resident made a request to the then landlord to be granted a tenancy of the GFF.

20. On 28 August 2020, the criminal court made a restraining order against N forbidding him not to contact the resident or go to her flat. It was to expire on 28 February 2022. On 16 October 2020, the court granted to the landlord an injunction with a Power of Arrest not to cause harassment alarm or distress and not to allow a specific individual and “or any other illegal sub-tenant or visitors entry” into N’s property. It was to expire on 16 October 2021. On 25 February 2021, the resident signed a witness statement in support of the landlord’s application to commit N to prison for alleged breaches of injunction. On 24 March 2021, the landlord made an application for committal. In September 2021, the resident reported that N had assaulted the resident’s son.

21. On 12 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident stating that the circumstances of her case did not meet the landlord’s then management transfer criteria. It stated that management transfers were reserved for cases supported by the police where there was “a credible risk to life”. It was “taking this (ASB) matter seriously”.

22. On 27 September 2021, the resident’s legal adviser requested an update on evicting N. The landlord replied the following day as follows:

The landlord had requested a report from the police in relation to the reported assault.
In view of the severity of this incident, and subject to its line of enquiries resulting in a sufficient evidence basis to proceed, it would be seeking to take possession action sooner against N.
Its original intention had been to await the conclusion of the committal proceedings as if the court found that N had breached his injunction, the landlord could apply for a “mandatory“ possession order “under Ground 7a – an ‘Absolute Ground’ for possession as defined within the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014”. Given the further allegation and upon receiving further information from the police in respect of their criminal investigation, it “would be minded to” commence possession proceedings sooner using discretionary grounds for possession.
It was applying to extend the injunction.

23. On 3 November 2021, the resident’s legal adviser wrote to the landlord as follows:

She queried why the committal proceedings were only listed for 9 February 2022 while the landlord had promised in its e-mail of 28 September 2021 that the landlord would seek to take action sooner because of the “violent offence” committed against the resident’s son on 16 September 2021.
Given the gravity of the situation, she requested an update by the next day.

24. The landlord replied the next day that its solicitors had requested that the committal proceedings be brought forward.

25. According to the parties’ later correspondence, the resident made a complaint on 10 November 2021. The landlord has informed this Service that it had not been able to locate it. The substance of the complaint is understood from the landlord’s response.

26. On 18 November 2021, the landlord wrote that the day before, the injunction order and power of arrest had been extended to 17 May 2022. The landlord would be seeking a longer extension at a further hearing to be listed.

27. The next day, the legal advisor wrote again.

She queried why the resident had not been informed sooner of the hearing.
She requested a copy of the extended injunction order.
The resident did not feel protected, given that N had breached the injunction. N still had access to the property.
She queried the landlord’s approach given the landlord had said it would issue possession proceedings.
She asked to escalate the complaint.

28. The resident made a complaint on 11 November 2021. The landlord was unable to locate the email but the substance of the complaint is understood from the landlord’s response.

29. On 1 December 2021, the resident’s legal advisor wrote to the landlord requesting to escalate the resident’s complaint as the landlord had failed to respond to her complaint. The complaint was about the lack of updates by the tenancy specialist officer (“TSO”), her “careless approach”, giving very short notice of the need for a statement having said the landlord would prepare this, and contact the solicitors direct. The TSO showed no understanding, including that she considered that he resident would feel safe as N was bailed away from his home but he still had access to the property. She wanted the landlord to replace her in managing the case. The landlord had not issued possession proceedings. The landlord was due to respond by 31 December 2021.

30. On 6 December 2021, the landlord wrote stating it had itself not been informed of the hearing 17 November 2021. The application to extend the injunction was to be listed on 21 December 2021.

31. On 7 December 2021, the legal advisor wrote as follows:

It queried that the landlord was only notified about the hearing on 17 November 2021 after the hearing.
She requested a copy of the extended injunction order.
She queried why the landlord had not issued possession proceedings.
The resident had made a complaint.
She set out the effect of the case on the resident’s health.

32. On 11 January 2022, the legal advisor chased the escalation of the complaint.

33. On 18 February 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:

It said it was responding to the resident’s complaint from the resident through her legal advisor of 1 February 2022.
The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB, and the landlord’s lack of communication by the TSO.
Her legal advisor’s emails of 7 December and chased 11 January 2022 requested clarification had been requested from the TSO handling her ASB case about their letter of 6 December 2021. It had identified an email from the legal advisor to the TSO.
An “email update” was “uploaded onto (its) timeline on 9 February 2022.
As the contempt hearing was also scheduled for this day, she “assumed” an update has already been provided.
It would ensure the TSO was providing regular updates and ensure that any next steps were followed through in a timely manner.
It had not identified a failure in service and would not be upholding her complaint.

34. According to the landlord’s notes, the legal advisor wrote on 25 February 2022, as follows:

The resident was “disappointed” with the Stage 1 response. It was to have been reviewed by a senior manager.
The complaint was dated 1 December 2021, not 1 February 2022.
They had not been updated about the proceedings. The resident had requested that the TSO be replaced. The TSO did not “care” about the resident’s anxiety and distress.
The different references numbers were confusing.
She requested a copy of the court order extending the injunction to 30 October 2023.

35. In a further email, the resident requested the following:

What further evidence was provided to the court on 23 February 2022 and what were to be the next steps.
The TSO was to provide fortnightly updates. None had been received including an update on committal proceedings.
She requested that the complaint to be escalated.

36. On 6 April 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:

On 10 November 2021, the resident had made a complaint through her legal adviser about staff members and their ASB case handling. On 1 December 2021, the legal advisor requested a peer review as she had not received a response to her complaint.
The complaint was about: failure to provide timely case updates, poor case handling including the officer’s communication about her witness statement.
The resident’s legal advisor’s email 25 February 2022 had stated that:
1. The Stage 1 complaint response stated that it had specified that it had received the complaint on 1 February 2022, when it was dated 1 December 2021.
2. What action was taken as a result of the letter dated 1 December 2021.
3. No new TSO had been allocated to this case.
4. She was concerned with the TSO’s case handling including their failure to take action in a timely manner.
5. The outcomes she wanted were to have another TSO, a commitment to provide her with regular and timely updates, and a copy of the injunction order that had been extended to October 2023.
Due to staff changes, the landlord did not correctly log her complaint of 10 November 2022, as a result of which on 1 December 2021, the legal advisor requested a peer review. On 3 December 2021, due to an administrative error, the correspondence was misfiled. The legal advisor chased on 11 January 2022.
It cited its complaints policy. Due to a combination of two administrative errors, it failed to make an initial attempt to resolve the query, her complaints were not correctly logged, therefore it had not concluded its complaint process. It was “reasonable” that its initial response be categorised as a Stage 1 response, its administrative errors caused unnecessary delay and frustration.
It was correct that it had received the complaint on 1 February 2022 “against the context of the complaint having been recorded correctly on our system”, it failed to acknowledge its administrative errors.
The TSO had responded to the legal advisor’s email of 27 January 2022 on 3 February 2022. The landlord has informed this Service that it had been unable to locate these emails.
Its Stage 1 response had not addressed the concerns of 10 November 2021 and 1 December 2021 summarised as:
1. The TSO failed to confirm whether the injunction was still in place.
2. She had not replied to the legal adviser’s emails.
3. She had received conflicting guidance and insufficient support from the TSO in completing a Witness Statement.
4. She did not clarify if and/or why the landlord had not started possession proceedings against N, although this had been under consideration.
5. She had made a request to appoint a more senior officer.
Since September 2021, there has been a communications service failure. It noted that the resident had expressed that the case “was handled” well while, due to the complexities, it had been handled by a manager..
The delivery of updates had been inconsistent, particularly at times when, from a victim-centred perspective, her requirement for case management updates was time sensitive. It should have reviewed and agreed a communications plan including that the TSO should have notified her of the outcome of the hearing more promptly than they did.
It took too long to clarify whether or not it had started possession proceedings it said it would take in its email 28 September 2021. It had received legal advice to wait for outcome of the committal proceedings (as this was regarded as a more proportionate approach to take prior to starting possession action). It did not clarify its position regarding the possession application until 27 January 2022.
The TSO continued to coordinate both the committal application and application to extend the injunction order.
Subsequently, the service she received did not reflect its established ASB procedure. It had provided her with insufficient time and support to complete her witness statement.
The response at Stage 1 was inaccurate and that there had been a service failure.
This complaint had identified specific training requirements.
Exceptionally, a manager would manage the case. They would contact the resident within seven days to agree a communication plan, with a view to providing with regular and consistent updates on a fortnightly basis. This communication plan will be subject to further review as this case progresses.
It had sent her the injunction order on 11 March 2022. The landlord has informed this Service that it had not located this email.
As the case had reached an advanced legal stage and it was seeking to commit N to prison for the various breaches of his injunction order, it was important that it provide her with a victim-centred service as well as a single point of contact.
It would reinforce the requirement to provide regular customer updates. Its team would be provided with “urgent” refresher training.
It offered £450 compensation consisting of £200 for its poor ASB case handling, £200 for its communications service failure and £50 for poor management of her Stage 1 complaint £50.

37. On 11 April 2022, the resident asked to apply for Management Transfer to the GFF with her carer due to her severe medical problems/issues as follows:

She had a heart condition and other serious illness. She could “no longer manage 33 steps daily to reach the second-floor bathroom”. She had an urgent need of a ground floor due to her severe medical grounds. She had already had few falls on the staircase. She offered to send evidence. She was to undergo two further operations in May/June 2022.
The family had been severely overcrowded for the past 21 years.
The offer in 2000 was “defective”.
The family had suffered ASB from N. Previously she had suffered ASB from 2000 to 2013 from a previous neighbour.
She had been allocated 6 bed management transfer by the previous landlord.
She understood N was due to move out.
She referred to the management transfer policy. She requested the application forms.
She appreciated its “speedy case handling” the officer was managing “excellently” where the case landed up in the court for hearing and 3 injunctions were granted against N.
The request was “in line to Article 8 of Human Right Act 1998” as she wished to spend her remaining time and days with her children and partner “without interference of any future assailants”.

38. On 12 and 13 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident that an officer would review her management transfer request and the writer (head of housing) would continue to oversee the progress of this case.

39. According to the correspondence, N’s tenancy ended on 3 May 2022.

40. On 23 May 2022, the resident made the following complaint:

N had only removed some of his belongings.
She had not been updated about the committal proceedings. N was still parking his car in front of their driveway which was intimidating.
She referred to the offer of the property in May 2000. She was told the landlord would offer the GFF at the time. She repeated her request for the GFF. The property was registered as a single dwelling with the Land Registry. The council leader informed her it would not be a problem to merge the 2 flats.
She had met the threshold for a management move and referred to the restraining order and injunctions.
The case had been managed well until 31 October 2023 (sic) by the previous head of housing.

41. According to the resident, she had made a complaint on 21 July 2022 and 4 August 2022. The landlord has been unable to locate these complaints, due to a cyber incident. However, the substance of the complaints were set out in the landlord’s responses.

42. On 5 August 2022, the landlord replied with a Stage 1 response as follows:

It apologised for the delay in the response due to a cyber-security incident.
Her complaint was about her request to merge the two flats via a management move.
She wanted a review of compensation.
It referred to a response of 3 August 2022. The landlord has not provided this to this Service.
It referred to her email of 9 May 2022 setting out her medical and overcrowding circumstances. She was aware that the flat had been offered to a different family. The TMO stated that the property consisted of 2 flats with different rents. It had a legal obligation to send all vacant properties back to the Local Authority, who would nominate prospective tenants on their housing register.
Her case had not met its criteria for a management transfer, which was reserved for exceptional cases whether there was a serious threat to a resident’s personal safety. It offered to refer her to its advice and support and set out alternative housing options.
It had omitted to offer her a review of the decision. She could still request a review. An independent Head of Service would carry out the review. He had undertaken the review and did so. Its head of housing had addressed her request in May 2022, should the GFF become vacant. The landlord would not offer the property to take account of her overcrowding issues. It did not allow for splitting households into two separate properties, and that would not undertake conversion of the 2 properties into one property. It had tried to meet with her to discuss her housing needs. She had refused further visits. It signposted the resident to the local authority.
The resident appealed the decision on 4 August 2022. She had made additional points concerning staff attitude when they attended the property. This was referred to review.
It offered £200 consisting of £50 for the late response and £150 for the time taken to resolve the complaint, any inconvenience suffered or a degree of disruption to the household and misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate, or incorrect information.

43. On 12 August 2022, the resident wrote with her complaint (headed “second complaint”) as follows:

She headed it “re-Offer of GFF as promised in May 2000”.
She noted that her complaints of 21 July 2022 and 4 August 2022 had been escalated to review. They had concerned “the defective offer” of GFF and the re-offer of GFF in May 2000.
She stated that the then head of housing in 2017 had a conflict of interest.
The complaint of 2017 was outside this Service’s jurisdiction as the complaint was not brought within the six months deadline.
N had not yet been evicted.
This Service “stated” that she should bring the issue of the GFF as a fresh issue when the ground floor property become vacant again.
GFF was now vacant. She requested the landlord re-offer the GFF to her “severely overcrowded family” as it also had severe medical conditions. The landlord had suggested a move. She had been living at the property for over 20 years.
She set out a history of the ASB by N in 2020/1, the restraining orders and its effects on the family. The landlord had not been “keen” to take eviction action against N. despite “ample proof of evidence”. Committal proceedings were listed on 15 September 2022.
The landlord had stated in its e-mail of 10 May 2022 that the property consisted of two separate flats with separate rents. It was not so registered at the Land Registry but consisted of a 5/6 bed house. She referred to the offer in May 2000.
Both tenants had “severe medical needs”. Her husband was having difficulties climbing the stairs to the bathroom. He required to reside on the ground floor with their son as carer.
This was a new complaint as was part of her e-mail 4 August 2022.

44. The landlord did not provide the Stage 1 response to this Service. On 7 October 2022, the landlord replied at Stage 2 as follows:

It apologised for the delay in its response due to the cyber-security incident.
N was no longer their resident.
The landlord had continued committal proceedings against him, despite the fact that he was no longer their tenant. This was in acknowledgement of the serious ASB her family was subjected to.
It had replied to her request to be offered the ground floor flat should it become vacant at any point, in a previous Stage 2 complaint dated 27 May 2020. It would not consider the matter further and would not offer the GFF to take account of the overcrowding issues. The landlord “did not allow for splitting households into two separate properties”. It would not undertake conversion of the property into one flat as they were charged at two separate rents irrespective of the flats being registered as one dwelling on the land registry.
It had recommended that she apply to the local authority as the landlord had a legal obligation to send all vacant properties back to the Local Authority.
A management transfer was considered in a small number of circumstances, for example where a tenant was experiencing serious ASB, harassment or domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put the tenant or a member of their households’ life at risk. In order for a management transfer to be considered it must be confirmed in writing by the police that there a serious risk or threat to the tenant or their family that means it was not safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at the property. Tenants who required a move due to medical needs or overcrowding did not fall within the scope of this policy and would be given high priority within the allocation policy or by local authorities via the nomination arrangements where the landlord did not maintain its own housing register (which is the case in their area). As N was no longer a tenant at the property, a management move encompassing the merging of both flats did not fall within the scope of this policy.
It confirmed the offer of compensation offered at Stage 1.
It offered £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.

45. On 22 November 2022, the court gave permission to the landlord to withdraw its committal application of 25 May 2021 (the breach of injunction allegations) and dismissed the application of 27 October 2021 (regarding the report of an assault). According to later correspondence, the resident made a complaint on that day. The landlord has not provided a copy of that complaint.

46. The landlord wrote on 23 November 2022 that there would be an independent review of the landlord’s handling of the ASB. It was not intended to pursue further action against N as he was no longer the landlord’s tenant.

47. On 25 January 2023, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows:

The complaint was about staff conduct, attitude and behaviour, her request for an independent audit and Judgment Order.
She had stated on 23 November 2022 that there was sufficient evidence in a witness statement and this had not been not located by the original TSO. The first committal application would have proceeded had she done so.
She considered the current and previous TMOs to be “incompetent”.
This has been a particularly challenging time for her household and that the legal interventions had taken some time to arrive at. They had been impacted by the general delays in the courts.
It had carefully considered legal advice regarding whether it would be reasonable and proportionate to proceed with the committal application in view of the fact that N was no longer at the address. It had agreed to continue with the committal application. The application was submitted to the County Court some time earlier, but delays within the court system had delayed a hearing date.
The landlord had updated her in the meantime.
No changes were made to the witness statement as there were no further significant incidents that had taken place, particularly as N had relinquished his tenancy.
She was asked prior to the hearing to familiarise herself with the statement as she would be questioned upon in it in court.
As a result of the outcome, the landlord agreed for an independent review to be carried out by an independent ASB consultancy, in accordance with an earlier commitment in its peer review response. It was awaiting a copy and would provide a summary and a copy of the Judgment Order.
It did not uphold her complaint.
It offered £50 for the delay in its response.

48. On 9 February 2023, the resident requested a review on the following grounds:

The TSO did not “carry out their duties” given the landlord’s barrister asked for further information during the hearing on 22 November 2022. The TSO denied she had this despite the resident having provided it to the landlord. She did not have the evidence with her. The committal application was withdrawn. The evidence was attached to the witness statement.
The court bundle was badly numbered.
The landlord did not seek to evict N. N breached the injunction.
She was still awaiting the injunction order and an independent investigation.
The landlord had stated that there had been no new incidents which required the witness statement to be updated, rather than that the TSO could not provide the original witness statement when the barrister asked for it.
The landlord should pursue the committal proceedings,

49. On 4 May 2023, the landlord wrote with its final response to the resident’s complaint of 22 November 2022 as follows:

It summarised her email of 9 February 2023 setting out “40 points” as follows.
1. The landlord did nothing for years and was negligent.
2. The TSO was negligent in pursuing the case.
3. Two criminal convictions against N had been secured and the landlord took no action.
4. The landlord should continue with the legal case even though N had left the GFF.
5. She wanted a response to the concerns raised in relation to the landlord’s handling of the court case.
6. The TSO failed to provide the landlord’s barrister with details of the breaches of the injunction. This led to the first committal proceedings being withdrawn which she felt equated to N being “let off the hook”.
There was no evidence to suggest that anybody attempted to try and cover up any ASB over 8 years.
It set out a chronology of events. The landlord could “not be held responsible if N chose to ignore the injunction”.
There were a number of delays in progressing this case as a result of the court and the defendant. It set out the chronology of the proceedings of the hearings and adjournments.
The first application for committal of 25 May 2021. The case was adjourned on several occasions. It was heard on 9 February 2022 when it was directed to trial but not listed until 15 September 2022. As N “claimed” to have Covid symptoms, it was adjourned to 22 November 2022.
The job of briefing the barrister and preparing the bundle was that of their solicitors.
The trial bundle contained her two signed statements dated 25 March 2021 and 26 October 2021, her police witness statement dated 16 September 2021 and her son’s witness statements.
She signed her statements and checked them. It did not see any issues with the numbering of the trial bundle.
Her witness statements contained details of the alleged breaches. The TSO attended. There was no need for the TSO’s manager to attend as she had not been involved in the case management, did not have a witness statement to present and be cross-examined on.
It referred to its decision to await proven breaches of injunction before issuing possession proceedings.
The Court had considered forbidding visitors could not reasonably have been meant, or understood by N, to ban him from having any visitors at all. If “illegal visitors” referenced Covid rules, N provided medical evidence of his need for support with daily living and stated that the individuals identified in her video evidence were visiting to provide support. In light of this it would have been very difficult to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The barrister noted that he spoke to the resident and was clear was no other evidence to show that the individuals were living there rather than just visiting. The barrister advised the landlord that there was no realistic prospect of proving a breach beyond reasonable doubt and so the first application should be withdrawn.
It had been the intention to carry out an independent case review be completed at the conclusion of the case. It was limited to the outcome of the hearing. It apologised. It has asked the company to carry out a full audit.
It had not received the order but was now enclosed.
It declined to offer compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment at her property from September 2014 to May 2022. It had investigated the reports of subletting and ASB and it had taken proportionate action.
It offered £250 compensation consisting of:
1. £200 for the delay to providing the independent audit and copy of the Court Order.
2. £50 for the delay to its Stage 2 response.

50. The resident was unhappy with the review as follows:

The reviewer had a conflict of interest as she had addressed the previous complaints and been at fault.
The landlord had denied the claim for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord did not take adequate steps until September 2021. The compensation was not sufficient. The lack of action facilitated the alleged assault by N on her son.
The landlord had concealed the ASB and unlawful subletting to this Service.

51. On 24 May 2024, the landlord provided to the resident a summary of the independent review of the ASB case. It acknowledged that:

There was “suboptimal communication” with both TSOs.
The ASB case was closed prematurely in 2020.
In December 2020, the full file was not sent for independent review.
A note dated 16 September 2020 suggested that the landlord served a notice seeking possession on 28 July 2020 and decided not to issue at that time, following legal advice and it was “felt” that applying for an injunction and possession at that stage would be disproportionate.
The review confirmed that the landlord applied for an earlier hearing in the committal proceedings.
In September 2021, the landlord stated its intention to issue possession proceedings. There was “no documented reasonable explanation for this decision at that particular time”. Subsequently, N voluntarily terminated his own tenancy.
There were instances of poor communication, including an email it had apologised for in October 2021 stating that an adjournment would not “cause further anxiety to you”, it did not update her regarding processes, court dates and outcomes of hearings including that of February 2022.

52. The summary of 23 November 2023 also found that:

The court found that the injunction order in 2020 did not ban all visitors.
There were delays to the court giving a hearing date for an application for committal. The landlord made an application for an expedited hearing and to extend the injunction.
At the hearing 22 November 2022, the court observed inconsistencies in the witness statements and concluded that the evidence did not meet the committal threshold, namely, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) of a neighbour

53. The resident had reported that she had been suffering 8 years of ASB. The evidence showed that the ASB became serious, worthy of granting a restraining order, an injunction and making two applications for committal for breach of injunction.

54. A court grants an injunction on the basis of the balance of probabilities. A court would have had to decide that it was reasonable and proportionate to grant an injunction and has to make findings of fact to do so. A breach of injunction has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order for a committal application to succeed. Under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988, a court will grant a possession order for breach of a tenancy agreement or causing ASB on discretionary grounds. That means a court will decide whether it is reasonable to grant a possession order, and if so, whether it would be reasonable to suspend such an order. However, a proven breach of injunction constitutes a mandatory ground. That means that the court must grant a possession order, if a court has made a finding that the defendant tenant breached an injunction. Possession proceedings and evictions were stayed during the pandemic in 2020/2021. This, together with lockdown restrictions and the pandemic itself created a backlog of cases in the courts.

55. Our 2018 investigation found that there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s decision not to issue possession proceedings. Matters deteriorated and the landlord issued an application for an injunction in 2020. It sought advice as to whether to issue possession proceedings as well. The landlord was advised that, at that stage, it was preferable to await the outcome of the committal proceedings, as that would provide a mandatory ground for possession and a surer outcome. It was entitled to rely on that advice. The resident considered that if the landlord had evicted N, an assault would not have taken place. The landlord’s point that it could not necessarily foresee that N would ignore the injunction. That was not a reasonable explanation. It would be for the landlord to monitor any alleged breaches. However, it may not have achieved an eviction by that date, (September 2021) given the then restrictions on eviction and the backlog in the court system.

56. It then reconsidered the matter in September 2021, following the resident’s allegation N had assaulted her son. There was no dispute that it gave the resident the impression that it was proceeding with possession proceedings. The independent review stated there was no documented reason for that decision, whether due to poor record keeping or a lack of proper focus on the case. This was inappropriate.

57. It was also inappropriate that the landlord did not communicate to the resident that it changed its decision regarding issuing possession proceedings. This was acknowledged by the landlord. However, again, there was no certainty that if the landlord had issued proceedings after September 2021, it would have gained possession before May 2022.

58. The landlord acknowledged the importance of communication in its Stage 2 response of 6 April 2022 and that it had lacked “a victim-centred approach”. While it was reasonable that the landlord promised fortnightly updates, there was little evidence of the landlord fulfilling its assurances set out in its complaint response of February 2021. It was also unreasonable not to update the resident with the outcome of any hearing. While the resident expressed that she was satisfied with some of the handling of the proceedings, by specific, members of staff, given the anxiety for the resident and her family and the long history of the ASB, the poor level of communication would have had significant impact on the resident.

59. N’s tenancy ended one month after the complaint response of 6 April 2022, so that all that was left were the committal proceedings, rather than managing the ASB itself. It was reasonable that the landlord decided to continue with the committal proceedings in any event. There was no evidence that the resident was not updated about the hearing being listed in September 2022, its adjournment and the relisting on 22 November 2022.

60. The landlord’s explanation for the committal proceedings failing was reasonable. The court had interpreted the wording of the injunction more strictly than the wording appeared so that the allegations of the first application about visitors attending N’s property fell away and the application was withdrawn, under the landlord’s solicitors’ advice. According to the independent review, as well as the landlord itself, the court found that the breaches in the second application were not proved “beyond reasonable doubt”. There was no evidence of fault by the landlord for this. The landlord had relied on the resident’s witness statements which had been submitted to court, and any further update by the resident at court so there was no evidence that the failure was due to the TSO failing to locate the resident’s evidence, as it was in the trial bundle for the court, or due to the numbering and handling of her evidence, witnesses or the trial bundle.

61. While we do not seek to minimise the impact of poor communication on a resident, particularly in these circumstances, the Ombudsman finds that the failings related to its poor communication and record keeping, rather than its decision making and the impact on the substantive events.

62. The Ombudsman finds that £400 for the poor handling of the ASB and escalating the management of the case to a manager constituted reasonable redress, together with its acknowledgement its failings, recognised the issues, namely that “it was important that it provide her with a victim-centred service as well as a single point of contact”.

63. The resident wanted damages for breach of quiet enjoyment due to the reported negligence of the landlord. These are legal concepts, which are better suited to the jurisdiction of the county court.

The resident’s request to be granted the tenancy for the flat below

64. The evidence showed that the resident has made a number of complaints about the same issue. The resident’s complaints stemmed from her report that, in 2000, the then landlord had promised the tenancy of the GFF in addition to the maisonette, once it became vacant. Her argument was that the landlord, or its successor should abide by an offer made in 2000. The Ombudsman has not investigated that report as it was outside our jurisdiction. It is noted that the offer letters of 2000 referred to the maisonette (although the letter of 5 May 2000 referred to the ground floor, the content indicates that it referred to the maisonette only). The Ombudsman is not investigating that aspect of her complaint.

65. The resident made a fresh application for the flat by way of management transfer in April 2022 on the basis a) the flat was vacant, or soon to be vacant, b) of her and her household’s disabilities and c) the family was overcrowded and d) she had suffered ASB for a number of years.

66. By the time the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, the GFF had been offered to a different family.

67. The landlord’s explanation that she was not at risk was, at the time of the application, was not clear, given N had not yet vacated the property. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not explain its decision more fully. Its explanation that she request a review of the landlord’s decision yet one had been carried out was contradictory. Moreover, it did not take account that it was then too late, the flat having been allocated elsewhere. Moreover, the landlord essentially had carried out a review and had not changed its decision. Therefore, the offer of £150 for not having informed the resident of her right to review was reasonable.

68. The resident cited initially that she was too disabled to use stairs and subsequently that her husband was also disabled. It was not clear who was to occupy the upper maisonette and who the GFF. The evidence indicated that the maisonette had potentially become unsuitable for both tenants.

69. The landlord was entitled to decline to convert the property back into one single household was reasonable. Howsover it was registered at the Land Registry, it was physical constructed as two separate dwellings. It was entitled to manage its stock as it saw fit and there was no obligation to incur considerable costs of reconverting the property.

70. The reason the landlord gave that it did not split up households was not explained. This was unreasonable.

71. There was no evidence that the landlord considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments and to assess the resident’s disabilities before it had made the decision. It did so after, when it offered to review the resident’s housing needs. It did not explain why it would not override its policies. However, there was no evidence it would have reached a different decision, given the obstacles in reconverting the property, its policies and the potential alternatives available, such as relocation.

72. The landlord’s explanation that its nomination arrangements with the local authority meant it was obligated to return its properties to the local authority’s housing register was not altogether satisfactory as the landlord could, nevertheless, offer a management move, and, at any rate under the current policy, it was not obliged to return the properties subject to a transfer of a tenancy, as that would not create a void. However, this would depend on the area where the resident’s tenancy is situated and the landlord did not clarify whether this applied in this case.

73. The resident’s position was that her application for a management transfer to the GFF was in line with the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to avoid further ASB. The landlord, if deemed to be a public body and carrying out a public function in relation to the specific issues raised, should have due regard to the resident’s rights under the Human Rights Act, this would apply to her right to live in her home without inference and regard for her wellbeing. The landlord did not address this point. However, by May 2022, the ASB had stopped.

74. Nevertheless, it would have been open to the landlord to register the GFF as a “sensitive let”.

75. In summary, while the Ombudsman is not entirely satisfied about the landlord’s reasons it provided for not letting the GFF to the resident in April 2023, it is noted that the management moves are limited to ASB which puts a tenant’s life at risk. It is reasonable to limit management moves to urgent circumstances. It also reasonably offering to assess the resident’s housing needs and support in finding alternative accommodation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

76. There was a number of instances of missing correspondence. This may have been due to the cyber attack suffered by the landlord in July 2022. The history of the complaints was difficult to track and, following our request, the landlord was unable to provide a timeline. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have robust back up provisions in place.

77. There were a number of delays in the landlord’s responses, for example from November 2021 to 18 February 2022, and administrative errors. The landlord acknowledged these in its Stage 2 response of 6 April 2022 as it did the failings of the Stage 1 response of 18 February 2022 itself, even of some of the explanation in its letter 6 April 2022 was, in itself, unclear.

78. The resident made a complaint on 23 May 2022 and 21 July 2022 and 4 August 2022. If its response 5 August 2022 was the response, it did not address the resident’s concerns that N had not in fact, moved out. Again, the response of 5 August 2022 was not clear as to how it was handling the review of the resident’s request for a management move.

79. The Stage 2 response of 4 May 2023 set out a response in detail but did not address it informing the resident in September 2021 that it would issue possession proceedings and then not doing so. There was a further 6-month delay to obtaining the investigation report and a further 6 months before it wrote to the resident with the report, or a summary of the report.

80. It was reasonable to offer £50 for each delay to its responses, although some delays were more significant than others. However, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the poor record management, not addressing its assurances of September 2021, and the further delay to obtaining and providing the investigation report.

Determination (decision)

81. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) of a neighbour.

82. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s request to be granted the tenancy for the flat below.

83. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

84. While it was clear that the resident had suffered ASB over the years, there was no evidence of substantive poor handling of the ASB case that caused a significant impact on the resident. The landlord recognised the issue of poor communication and the Ombudsman found that the offer of compensation constituted reasonable redress.

85. The landlord declined the resident’s application on the basis that there was no evidence that her life was at risk at the time of the application.

86. The landlord recognised its delays. However, the investigation report it had offered as resolution was further delayed.

Orders

87. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:

Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £200 in relation to the complaint handling in addition to the payments it had offered.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the resident with the investigation report of November 2023, if it has not already done so.

88. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report

Recommendation

89. The landlord should try and reengage with the resident in order to assess her housing needs and to offer support including signposting to assist her with alternative accommodation.