Curo Places Limited (202331355)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331355

Curo Places Limited

21 January 2025

Amended 23 April 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of tenancy compliance issues.
2. handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. handling of correspondence from the resident.
4. response to the resident’s request for a hard copy of the tenancy agreement.
5. response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of staff.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. Her tenancy began in 2001. The property is a first floor flat. The resident suffered abuse and trauma in her past. She has poor mental health. This includes severe anxiety and agoraphobia. She has numerous physical health conditions.
In January 2020 the landlord attended the property. It identified that it needed to repair an electric water heater. It also wished to fit fire and heat alarms. However, it was unable to carry out any work as the resident kept a large number of personal possessions at the property. These items impeded access to the areas requiring work. The resident referred to these items as her ‘collections’.
The landlord wrote to the resident in February 2020. It told her that the condition of the property needed to improve so that it could carry out the work. The resident informed the landlord she was anxious about letting people into her house. The landlord said it would support her. It asked to meet with her to discuss a way forward. The resident agreed to this but the meeting did not go ahead due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The landlord did not pursue the property condition issue again until March 2021. It offered the resident the support of an officer from its Navigator Scheme. The role of the officer (the Navigator) was to provide a single point of contact for residents with complex needs or specific communication requirements.
The Navigator and resident met in April 2021. They discussed a plan for clearing some of her collections. The Navigator explained how she could assist the resident with this. She said that she would work at the resident’s pace to ensure she felt safe. The resident agreed to the offer of support.
Over the course of the next year, the Navigator met regularly with the resident. Together they made some progress with clearing items from the property. The Navigator left her role in May 2022. The landlord continued to offer the resident the support of other Navigators but by the end of 2022 she was no longer engaging with the Scheme.
The landlord held an internal meeting to discuss this in January 2023. It decided that the resident had not made enough progress to improve the condition of the property. It considered that she was no longer engaging with the Navigator Scheme. It also identified that an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) for the property had been outstanding since 2016. The landlord noted it had made previous attempts to carry out the inspection, but the resident refused access. It therefore determined it would take formal tenancy enforcement action and issue the resident with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP).
The resident rang the landlord numerous times in April and May 2023. However, most of the calls were made outside its opening hours and therefore diverted to a messaging facility. The resident left approximately 20 voicemails. Within the voicemails, the resident said that she wished to meet with a Navigator. She also complained about antisocial behaviour carried out by her neighbours.
The landlord spoke to the resident on the phone on 8 June 2023. It told her that it intended to issue her with a NOSP due to the condition of her property. During this phone call, the resident told the landlord about an incident where her neighbour threatened and intimidated her. She confirmed she had reported it to the police but that she did not wish the landlord to open an ASB case at that time.
The resident subsequently emailed the landlord on 28 June 2023 and outlined the distress that the conversation regarding the NOSP had caused her. She said she had been trying to contact a Navigator and her manager for months, but they had not responded to the voicemails she left. She explained that she had been working with a home helper since April 2023. The helper was assisting her with clearing items from the property and improving its condition.
In response the landlord advised the resident that it would still be issuing her with a NOSP. The NOSP would be valid for 12 months. The landlord told the resident that if she could evidence she was making significant progress in clearing items, it would not take any further steps to action the NOSP and seek possession.
Within the resident’s email of 28 June 2023, she also complained about the incident where she felt threatened by her neighbour. She sent 4 further emails and made 4 phone calls over the next 3 months in which she complained about his behaviour. The landlord advised her to report his behaviour to the police. It did not open an ASB case.
In October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to send all its communications through a third party advocate who was supporting her.
A number of emails passed between the landlord and the advocate between November 2023 and March 2024. In these emails, the landlord explained that it was issuing the NOSP due to property condition and also because the resident had refused access for an EICR and fire safety check to be carried out. It said that it would not act upon the NOSP, once served, if it received evidence that the resident had made progress with clearing her home.
The advocate outlined in detail the impact that the landlord’s previous communications had on the resident’s mental and physical health. She asked the landlord to reconsider its decision to issue a NOSP. The landlord maintained its position. On 9 April 2024, it sent the NOSP to the resident’s solicitor.
With assistance from the Ombudsman, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 April 2024. She complained about:
1. the landlord threatening to serve her with a NOSP.
2. the landlord threatening her with imminent home loss.
3. the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, including intimidating and aggressive behaviour, from her neighbour.
4. the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB made against her.
5. the landlord’s failure to respond to her correspondence.
6. feeling harassed and bullied by a member of staff.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 April 2024. It said:
1. it decided to issue a NOSP because of the condition of the property and the resident’s refusal to permit access for fire safety checks.
2. the initial delay in serving the NOSP was because it wanted to ensure the resident had the correct support in place when receiving it.
3. once it was satisfied she did have support, it had intended to send the NOSP to her solicitor in March 2024. Due to an “internal communication misunderstanding” there was a delay in sending it to the solicitor. It apologised for this delay and offered £100 compensation.
4. service of a NOSP did not mean imminent home loss. A court would make that final decision.
5. it had reviewed its handling of the reports of ASB made by the resident and the reports made against her. It was content it dealt with all reports according to its ASB procedure.
6. its records indicated that it was only to contact the resident by letter or text and via her advocate. It asked the resident to let it know if she wished to change this.
7. it took all complaints about staff very seriously. It asked the resident to confirm which member of staff she referred to in her complaint about conduct.
8. it offered the resident the opportunity to have a Navigator to support her moving forward.
On 8 May 2024 the Ombudsman informed the landlord that the resident wished to escalate her complaint. The resident and her advocate then sent emails directly to the landlord to explain why the resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response. In doing so, they included additional complaint issues not raised at stage 1. These were that:
1. the landlord had not handled the resident’s requests for safeguarding support appropriately.
2. the landlord had discriminated against the resident who had complex needs.
3. the landlord was unwilling to provide the resident with a copy of the tenancy agreement.
The Ombudsman advised the landlord that it could address the additional issues within its stage 2 response. The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement of the escalation request on 13 May 2024.
On 17 May 2024 the landlord emailed the advocate. It explained that it had received legal advice that it would need to deliver the NOSP to the resident at her home address. It said it was informing the advocate so she could ensure there was support in place for the resident when it arrived. The landlord subsequently hand delivered the NOSP to the property on 30 May 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 June 2024. It maintained its position, as set out in its stage 1 response, in relation to the NOSP, its handling of ASB reports, and its response to correspondence. By the time of the stage 2 response, the resident had confirmed the name of the staff member who she said had harassed and bullied her. The landlord said in the response that the staff member’s line manager would investigate this in line with its internal processes.
In relation to the additional complaint issues raised by the resident, the landlord said:
1. it made a safeguarding referral for the resident in November 2022. This related to its concern that she would not leave her property to top up her electric meter due to ASB in the building.
2. it closed the safeguarding case shortly after it was opened. This was because there was further support in place for the resident at that time through the landlord’s Navigator scheme.
3. it had made “reasonable adjustments” to its service to accommodate the resident’s needs. The offer of a Navigator remained open.
4. it was not within its remit to make a determination on discrimination. It provided signposting advice to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
5. despite the resident requesting a copy of her tenancy agreement on 28 June 2023, it did not comply with the request until 29 September 2023. It acknowledged the resident had spent time chasing this up. It said it was sorry for the delay and offered the resident £100 compensation.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints that have been addressed by the landlord through its internal complaints process. This investigation is therefore focussed on the events from 11 January 2023, when the landlord initially decided to issue a NOSP, to 14 June 2024 when it issued its stage 2 complaint response. Some earlier events are referred to for context but do not form part of the Ombudsman’s overall assessment on each complaint issue. Similarly, events occurring after the stage 2 complaint response was issued fall outside the scope of this investigation.
When escalating her complaint to stage 2, the resident suggested that the landlord discriminated against her on the grounds of disability. As part of our investigation, we have considered whether the landlord took account of the resident’s vulnerabilities in its dealings with her. However, we have not assessed whether any of its actions or communications amounted to discrimination. Section 114 (1) of the Equality Act 2010 states the County Court has the jurisdiction to decide if there has been discrimination or other prohibited conduct. As such, this Service cannot make a binding decision that discrimination has occurred. The resident should seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue a discrimination claim.
When the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said the landlord’s actions had negatively impacted on her mental and physical health. Part of the redress she sought was to be financially compensated for this. In response, we advised her that the Ombudsman cannot determine liability for personal injury. We are not qualified to make an assessment as to how the landlord’s actions might have caused a medical condition or resulted in a deterioration of an existing condition. If we identify any failings by a landlord, we may order compensation for the distress or inconvenience caused. However, we do not assess the impact of the failings on a resident’s health. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed as a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or as a civil action. If the resident wishes to consider this further, she should seek independent advice.

Handling of tenancy compliance issues

The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident sets out a range of rights, responsibilities and obligations for both parties. If the resident does not comply with her obligations, the landlord is entitled under the terms of the tenancy agreement to take enforcement action. It should attempt to resolve the matter informally but if such attempts have failed, it may consider taking formal action. Such action may include seeking possession of the property in line with the pre-action protocol for possession claims by social landlords.
Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 sets out the grounds on which a landlord may apply to court to seek possession of a property lived in by an assured tenant. One of the grounds is that the tenant has broken or not performed one or more of their obligations under the tenancy agreement. The landlord cited this ground in the NOSP delivered to the resident’s property on 30 May 2024.
The NOSP set out the landlord’s view that she had not complied with the following aspects of the tenancy agreement:
1. Clauses 5.10 and 5.11 require the resident to keep the property in good repair and condition. The NOSP stated that the property was “hoarded and in a poor condition”.
2. Clause 5.13 requires the resident to allow the landlord and its contractors access to the property to carry out inspections, repairs and improvements. The NOSP stated that the resident:
  1. had not permitted the landlord access to complete an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) which had been outstanding since June 2016.
  2. indicated she would not allow a specific officer to enter her property and carry out a Person Centred Fire Safety Risk Assessment (PCFRA).
The landlord is required by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that the electrics in the property are kept in repair and proper working order throughout the tenancy. The Act also requires the landlord to ensure the property is fit for human habitation when the tenancy is granted and throughout the tenant’s occupation.
The landlord is required by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to regularly review the condition of the property to consider where it can be improved and made safer. The HHSRS sets out potential risks and hazards found in residential properties. These include electrical and fire hazards. It also recognises that cramped living conditions, including through storing an excessive number of personal possessions, can increase the risk of fire. This may also create poor living conditions and potentially contribute to mould growth and pest infestations. The HHSRS, along with other health and safety regulations, require landlords to mitigate against such hazards by arranging for qualified persons to carry out regular inspections and produce certificates, such as an EICR and PCFRA.
This means that the landlord is legally obliged to ensure that the property is in a safe condition and complies with electrical and fire safety standards. This is essential for the health and safety of the resident and other people living in the building. The landlord appropriately recognised that it was not absolved of these responsibilities because the resident did not permit access for inspections. It therefore took action to try and resolve the compliance issues during 2021 and 2022 by offering the resident the support of a Navigator. This resulted in some progress being made in clearing items from the property. The Navigator encouraged the resident to seek additional assistance from a home helper and encouraged her to seek support for her mental health. Unfortunately, however, when the first Navigator left her role in May 2022, the relationship between the resident and the subsequent 2 Navigators was less productive.
By Autumn 2022, the resident indicated she did not want to work with the Navigator offered by the landlord. She wanted to continue working with another Navigator who initially took over when the first Navigator left. The landlord reasonably explained to her this was not an option due to staffing changes. It held an internal meeting with relevant staff in November 2022 to discuss the resident’s case. It agreed that it would speak again to the resident to explain the staffing changes, address her concerns and encourage her to avail of the Navigator support on offer. The landlord planned to devise an action plan setting out its top 3 priorities for addressing tenancy compliance issues. It also intended to agree a communications plan with the resident and to provide her with signposting information for mental health support.
The issues discussed and actions agreed by the landlord at its meeting in November 2022 were reasonable and sympathetic to the resident. Its records indicate that it hoped its intervention would result in the resident being able “to sustain her tenancy and have a better quality of life.” However, for the action plan and communications plan to be put in place, the landlord required the resident to engage with it through the Navigator Scheme. The landlord attempted to arrange meetings with the resident to discuss this, but she indicated she was unable to meet with it at that time.
The landlord held a further internal meeting on 11 January 2023 to discuss next steps. It agreed at the meeting that not enough progress had been made to clear the property and that this was a fire risk. It noted that the resident was no longer engaging with the Navigator Scheme. The resident later explained that this was due to family circumstances and illness. However, at the point of the landlord making its decision in January 2023, its understanding was that the resident did not want to engage with the Navigator due to personnel reasons.
The landlord decided that formal action was required. It determined that its next step would be to issue a NOSP. The Ombudsman is satisfied that it was reasonable for the landlord to consider issuing a NOSP at that time. That is not to say that we believe the landlord was entitled to take possession of the property as such a decision is ultimately for a court to determine. Rather, we are satisfied that it was an appropriate tool for the landlord to consider using to manage tenancy compliance. It had taken a stepped approach in its decision making, attempting informal means to resolve the issues first. It had allocated additional resources through its Navigator Scheme to support the resident for almost 2 years by that stage. It considered that this had not resulted in enough progress being made in clearing the property. It had not secured access to complete an EICR. It had legitimate concerns regarding fire safety. Given the landlord’s legal responsibilities to ensure the property was in a safe and habitable condition, its consideration of formal action by way of a NOSP in January 2023 was reasonable in the circumstances.
An additional formal action the landlord could have considered taking was to apply to court for an injunction to allow it to gain access to the property. The landlord’s records do not indicate if it considered doing this in January 2023. It told the resident’s advocate in November 2023 that its electrical team were considering seeking an injunction. However, we understand that no further action was taken to pursue this at that time. We recognise that even with an injunction in place, the EICR and fire risk assessment could only be carried out if the resident’s collections had been sufficiently cleared so that they did not cause an obstruction. An injunction for access would also be unlikely to resolve the ongoing issue of the property’s condition. Overall, we are therefore satisfied that the landlord’s handling of tenancy compliance in January 2023 was reasonable. However, we have found numerous failings in the manner in which it progressed the NOSP in the months that followed.
Following its decision in January 2023, it was a further 5 months before the landlord told the resident it intended to issue a NOSP. There is no direct explanation in the landlord’s records for this this delay. However, the note of the meeting in January 2023 suggested that there would be a delay in passing it to a compliance case manager due to caseloads at that time. Instead, the case was to remain with the team responsible for the Navigator Scheme until a case manager was assigned. It appears to have transferred to compliance by late May 2023. A file note records that on 23 May 2023 the case was discussed with a compliance manager and it was agreed a NOSP was still to be served.
During this 4 month period when the case was waiting to be assigned, the evidence suggests the landlord made no contact with the resident. This was a significant failing given the resident made numerous attempts, including at least 9 text messages and 6 phone calls, during this period to speak with it.
Most of the phone calls made by the resident during April and early May 2023 were late at night so she left voicemail messages. Based on the evidence, it appears that at least 5 voicemail messages were left on 3 April and 27 April 2023, with a further message left on 8 May 2023. Within these the resident expressed her wish to meet with the third Navigator. She stated, ‘I really want to work with you, I am sorry about any confusion before.” She also reported that she was experiencing ASB from her neighbours.
Given the time the calls were made, it is understandable that the landlord did not answer them or respond immediately. However, it is unreasonable that it did not return the calls or respond to the texts during office hours. The only explanation was provided in a text message months later, on 4 July 2023, from a Navigator to the resident. The text explained the calls were made at inconvenient times. It stated that the Navigator was advised by her manager that, “support with myself had been offered but not accepted by you and the support offer was ended for me to be involved.”
There are 2 issues with this explanation. Firstly, even if a landlord has decided to issue a NOSP, one of the purposes of it is to give the resident an opportunity to correct the compliance issues. The landlord should reasonably support the resident to do this. It is therefore illogical that the landlord would treat support and compliance as 2 incompatible concepts. When responding to the resident’s complaint in 2024, the landlord appropriately made clear that the Navigator Scheme was still available to the resident. Secondly, even if the landlord had decided in January 2023 that the resident could no longer avail of the Navigator Scheme, it should have communicated this to her. Instead, it did not respond to her distressed calls and texts in which she specifically asked to re-engage. This was unfair to the resident and unreasonable.
The landlord’s records contain a line that states the case was discussed with a manager on 23 May 2023 and it was agreed a NOSP should be issued. No further information about the landlord’s decision making at that time is included in the case records. It is unclear whether the resident’s phone calls and texts to the landlord, and attempts to re-engage with the Navigator Scheme, were taken into account when this was decision was reached. This would have been an important consideration given the resident’s disengagement with the Scheme was a key factor in January 2023 when the original decision to issue a NOSP was made.
The resident left 14 further voicemails late at night and during the early hours of the morning on 25 and 26 May 2023. The officer who received the messages recorded that she was unable to return the calls as she had no phone number on which to contact the resident. It is noted that the resident had changed her number due to concerns her phone had been hacked. The landlord was aware that the resident was unsupported at that time. It was therefore unreasonable that it did not attempt to contact her through other means, especially as it was evident that the resident was distressed by the situation. For example, it could have sent her a letter by post.
In total during April and May 2023, the resident left the landlord at least 20 voicemails. She received no response. Following these unreturned calls, the first contact the landlord had with the resident was during a phone call on 8 June 2023 in which it advised her it had decided to issue a NOSP. Given the absence of communication from the landlord for several months, this was a heavy handed approach.
The landlord has not provided us with a record of the call on 8 June 2023. Details of it are not included on the contact log spreadsheet submitted to us as evidence, nor within the case file notes. The call was referred to by the resident in subsequent correspondence and the landlord has not disputed the call took place on this date.
The resident’s account of the call is that the landlord threatened her with imminent home loss and told her to get a solicitor. She said she had a “trauma response” to this as she was a victim of abuse and had PTSD. It is evident from her emails to the landlord in the months that followed, and in accounts given by her home helper and advocate, that she was deeply upset and affected following the call.
As we have established, it was a failing that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s requests to re-engage with its support services in April and May 2023. We have no way of knowing whether, had it responded and offered support, this would have changed its decision to issue the NOSP. However, even if it had still proceeded with the NOSP, the resident would have been better supported when the decision was communicated to her. Instead, she received the news over the phone, with no support in place, having heard nothing from the landlord for months despite her attempts to contact it. This was inappropriate.
In later correspondence and in its complaint responses the landlord said that it did not threaten the resident with imminent home loss. It explained that the purpose of serving the NOSP was to give the resident an opportunity to improve the condition of her property and permit access for the EICR and PCFRA. It said if she did that, it would not need to action the NOSP. It explained that if improvements were not made and the matter was brought to court, the resident would have an opportunity to defend the application. It explained that was why it suggested she seek legal advice. It said it would be for the court to decide whether or not to grant possession. While this was a reasonable explanation of the NOSP process, the landlord failed to consider whether there were failings in its original communication of the decision to a vulnerable and unsupported resident.
Following the 8 June 2023 phone call, it was a further 10 months before the landlord issued the NOSP. It was aware by August 2023 that the resident was being supported by a home helper and that she was arranging for an advocate to assist her with communications. Its records indicate that it wanted to allow time for the support arrangements to take effect and to liaise with the advocate before taking any action. This was a reasonable and proportionate decision at that time. However, by November 2023 the advocacy arrangements were in place. The landlord had updated the advocate on the case and its rationale for issuing a NOSP. It made clear its decision to issue the NOSP was made and would not be changed. It was therefore unreasonable that at that stage it did not issue the NOSP and instead waited a further 5 months before issuing it.
The advocate told the landlord in an email in February 2024 that the delay was having a detrimental impact on the resident. She asked it to serve the NOSP so that a solicitor, could “support [the resident] with the legal aspect, because the threat of it, over a protracted period of time, has eaten away at [the resident’s] mental state”.
The delay also meant that the landlord’s communications with the advocate remained focussed on why a NOSP was going to be issued, rather than any practical progress being made towards tenancy compliance. For example, based on the evidence available, it appears that no formal access requests were made by the landlord during the 5 month period between the advocate being appointed and the NOSP issued. In an email on 30 October 2023, it said it would send an appointment letter for a PCFRA in the coming weeks. However, we have not been provided with any evidence that it then sent this. The resident responded on 20 November 2023 and said that she did not want a specific officer in her home. There is no evidence the landlord explored with the advocate whether there could be a workaround to this. For example, use of different personnel or for the resident to not be at home when it was carried out. Instead, the focus of communications with the advocate remained on why a NOSP was going to be served.
The landlord intended to issue the NOSP to the resident’s solicitor in March 2024 but did not do so until 9 April 2024. It explained in its stage 1 complaint response that this was due to an “internal communication misunderstanding”. It apologised and offered £100 compensation. This was a reasonable offer of compensation for that short period of delay. However, the only explanation it provided for the longer delay was that it wanted to ensure the resident had support in place. As outlined above, while this was initially reasonable, it does not explain why it took 5 months from when the advocacy arrangements took effect before the NOSP was issued to the solicitor. The delay therefore does not appear justified or reasonable.
Overall, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of tenancy compliance issues. It failed to respond to the resident’s requests for support in April and May 2023. It did not take this into account when advising her in June 2023 that it intended to issue a NOSP. It failed to recognise or show sympathy for the impact of this communication on her in its complaint responses. It appropriately agreed to liaise with the resident’s advocate and communicated clearly with her in relation to why it had decided to issue a NOSP. However, it then delayed unreasonably in issuing it. The evidence shows this added to the resident’s distress.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.
While we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter, the resident remains obliged by the tenancy agreement to ensure the property is kept in good condition and she must permit the landlord access for statutory inspections. The landlord is entitled to consider utilising the range of tenancy management tools available to it to ensure compliance. It would be in the interests of all parties if they could work together to resolve the compliance issues.
We note that the landlord suggested to the resident in both complaint responses that she could avail of its Navigator Scheme. We would encourage the resident to accept this offer of support as the Navigator, while supporting the resident, is a direct representative of the landlord. The Navigator would be well placed to offer advice on what specific action was required to ensure tenancy compliance. The Navigator would be able to work closely with the resident’s advocate given that is her current contact preference.

Handling of reports of ASB

The landlord’s ‘Tenancy Compliance Policy’ sets out that it will respond to reports of ASB promptly. It recognises, “the distress that antisocial behaviour has on individuals and communities.” It states, “we will take a robust approach to tackling problems caused by tenants, other household members or their visitors.”
The resident first reported feeling harassed by her neighbour during the voicemails she left in April and May 2023. He had recently moved in with another neighbour who was a tenant of the landlord. The landlord’s first discussion with the resident about these reports was during a phone call on 8 June 2024. This was not a ‘prompt’ response to her reports as required by its policy. The landlord stated in its complaint responses that it had responded to her reports in accordance with its policy. Given that the initial reports were not dealt with in a timely manner, it is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion. It was also unreasonable that it did not acknowledge this delay in its initial response.
During the phone call on 8 June 2023, the resident outlined an incident where she felt threatened by the neighbour. She confirmed she had reported it to the police. The landlord asked if she wished it to open an ASB case and she said she did not. It followed this with a text the next day advising the resident to let it know if she changed her mind. This was an appropriate response.
The resident rang and emailed the landlord on 28 June 2023 to complain about the neighbour’s behaviour. She made a further phone call the following day. She complained about smoke from the neighbour’s barbeques in the communal garden. She also reported a further incident involving unwanted physical contact and text messages from him. She asked the landlord to tell him to cease all contact with her.
The landlord returned the resident’s calls on 29 June 2023. It advised her to report any threatening behaviour to the police. This was appropriate advice as assault and harassment are criminal matters. However, they are also a relevant consideration for a landlord where there are reports of ongoing ASB. We recognise that the neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord. However, he was living with a tenant. The landlord’s tenancy terms and conditions make clear that tenants are responsible for the behaviour of every person living in or visiting their home. This includes in the communal areas. Tenants are obliged to ensure that they and their visitors do not “cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to any other person”. They are not permitted to harass, assault or threaten violence against any other person.
The resident explained during the phone call on 29 June 2023 that the landlord had previously offered, on 8 June 2023, to open an ASB case and assign a case manager to it. The landlord however reiterated a number of times during the phone call that it could do nothing further at that stage but that it would work with the police if they substantiated the resident’s reports.
It was inappropriate that the landlord refused on 29 June 2023 to take any action or to open an ASB case unless the resident first contacted the police. Although there may have been limited evidence available at that stage to enable the landlord taking any action against the neighbour, it could reasonably have opened an ASB case and made further enquiries. For example, the resident told it during the call that she reported previous incidents to the police. The landlord therefore could have proactively contacted the police and asked for information about those previous reports. It could also potentially have spoken with the neighbour’s partner given she was a tenant responsible for the behaviour of her guests.
The resident was upset during the call on 29 June 2023 and was known to be vulnerable. At that time, she did not have an advocate in place and was not working with the Navigator Scheme. She said twice during the call that she wanted to work with a Navigator again. The landlord did not acknowledge this. If it had opened an ASB case, it would have been required by its policy to consider what support it could offer to the resident. In line with best practice, this may also have involved carrying out a risk assessment. Instead, the landlord maintained during the call that all it could do was advise the resident to report her concerns to the police. This was unreasonable.
In August and September 2023, the resident sent 4 emails to the landlord and made 2 phone calls to its contact centre in which she reported feeling threatened by her neighbour. She also complained he was smoking in the communal hallway. She asked the landlord to tell him not to talk to her, text her, touch her, approach her, or stare into her window.
The landlord responded to her further ASB reports in 2 emails sent on 29 September 2023. It asked her to clarify which issues involving the neighbour she would like an ASB case opened for. It was reasonable that it asked for this clarity as the resident had sent lengthy emails covering lots of different issues, not just ASB. The landlord also asked her if she had any physical evidence regarding the smoking in the communal hallway and damage to the gardens. It said it would be unable to pursue an ASB case without evidence. This was all appropriate advice. However, it was delayed advice given the emails were sent on 24 August, 5 September, 11 September and 25 September 2023. The reason for the delay is unclear from the evidence. As such, there is nothing to suggest that it was unavoidable. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint responses either. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not make enquiries with the police at that time given the resident provided it with a crime reference number in a phone call on 7 September 2023.
Part of the resident’s formal complaint was that the landlord did not provide her with safeguarding support. The landlord misunderstood this complaint when addressing it in its stage 2 response. Its response detailed a safeguarding referral it made in November 2022. However, the resident’s complaint was that it did not make a safeguarding referral when she reported feeling threatened and intimidated by her neighbour during 2023. She was unhappy that it did not ask him not to contact her as she had repeatedly requested. Her advocate explained this in emails to the landlord on 15 March 2024 and 23 May 2024. She said that by not warning the neighbour as per the resident’s request, the landlord had not adequately safeguarded her.
The Ombudsman does not find that the landlord’s refusal to issue a warning to the neighbour amounted to a failure to safeguard. The police were the appropriate authority to consider whether a warning regarding contact was appropriate and, if so, to deliver the warning. The landlord reasonably advised the resident of this. However, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord missed an opportunity to better support the resident due to its failure to open an ASB case, risk assess or to respond to her repeated requests to re-engage with the Navigator Scheme.
On 12 March 2024 the landlord emailed the advocate and asked to discuss with her “a new complaint regarding harassment.” The complaint was made against the resident. The advocate responded and asked the landlord to outline its findings to her by email rather than over the phone. She said, “that would be easier for me to share and discuss with my client, who has auditory processing disorder and needs visuals to support her”. The advocate also referred to the previous reports made by the resident during 2023 about her neighbour’s behaviour. She complained that the landlord had not taken any action in response to these reports.
The landlord responded to the advocate by email on 26 March 2023. It said it had confirmed that the resident’s police report about her neighbour was closed in April 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord checked this with the police. However, it was unreasonable that it only carried out this check almost a year after the incident occurred given the resident provided it with a crime reference number in September 2023.
The landlord said in its response that it would not look into complaints about ASB that were older than 6 months. It offered to arrange for a police community support officer to visit the resident and the neighbour who was a tenant. It indicated it would also attend the visit and that it hoped this would help resolve all issues between the neighbours going forward. This was a reasonable suggestion. However, the resident or her advocate did not respond to the landlord and avail of the offer. The resident told us she would have been unable to attend such a meeting due to her mental health and medical conditions.
Within the landlord’s email to the advocate on 26 March 2023, it stated, “this is a verbal warning.” This was confusing given the warning was in writing, rather than oral. Within the email the landlord asked the resident to avoid contact with the neighbour she had complained about and his partner. It did not say why she was being given the warning or explain what the consequence of breaching it would be. The only information provided by the landlord about the resident’s behaviour was in its initial email to the advocate on 12 March 2024 in which it said there was a “complaint regarding harassment”.
The term harassment can cover any sort of behaviour that causes a person to feel alarmed or distressed. By definition it is subjective. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to give the resident a warning about her conduct without providing her with more information about the reports made against her.
The landlord did not recognise this in its complaint responses. On the contrary, it said in its stage 1 response that it could not “disclose information or personal details” regarding complaints made against the resident. While it was correct that the landlord had to comply with data protection legislation, it was unreasonable to suggest it could provide no information about the reports. Given it issued the resident with a warning, it should have been able to provide her with some information about what the warning related to in order that she knew not to repeat the same behaviour. It could reasonably have explained to the complainant the information it intended to disclose. If they objected, the landlord should have considered whether it was proportionate to proceed with issuing a warning about behaviour without explaining what the behaviour was.
The landlord’s email on 26 March 2023 concluded by saying that it would advise the neighbours not to have contact with the resident. It was unclear whether this meant they would also receive a ‘verbal warning’ as the resident had received. This understandably led the resident to feel that the landlord had treated her unfairly compared to how it treated other residents in the building who reported ASB.
The landlord received no further reports of harassment or ASB about the resident. In April 2024 it therefore appropriately closed the case it had opened against her and took no further action.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. It delayed in responding to the resident’s initial reports in April 2023. There were further delayed responses in August and September 2023. Although the landlord appropriately offered to open an ASB case on 8 June 2023, it refused to do so later that month. This was despite the resident having sent an email and made 2 phone calls in which she specifically asked it to take action. This was unreasonable and meant that it did not adhere to its ASB policy.
In relation to the reports of harassment made against the resident, the landlord failed to provide her with any detail about her reported behaviour yet proceeded to issue her with a warning for that behaviour. This was unfair. It meant the resident did not have the opportunity to put on record her response to the reports made against her.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which states that where there has been a series of failures by a landlord, which have had a seriously detrimental impact on residents, payments of over £600 are recommended. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

Handling of correspondence from the resident

The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s phone calls and texts in April and May 2024 has already been considered as part of our above assessment into its handling of the tenancy compliance issues. However, an additional issue raised by the resident during the complaint process was that the landlord failed to respond to her written correspondence.
Between June 2024 and October 2023, the resident sent the landlord at least 12 emails along with a number of text messages. She explained in the emails how the landlord’s decision to issue a NOSP had negatively impacted her mental and physical health. She also reported that her neighbour had subjected her to ASB, including threatening and intimidating behaviour.
It was evident from the emails that the resident was very distressed. The emails were all long in length and contained a lot of detailed, additional information not directly related to the NOSP or ASB. It was understandable that it took the landlord some time to consider the content of the emails. This meant it did not always respond immediately to the emails or to each individual email. However, it did issue 5 substantive email responses to the resident during this time period. The delay in responding specifically to the ASB elements of the emails has been assessed in the previous section of this report. However, overall the Ombudsman is satisfied that in these 5 emails the landlord made reasonable attempts to respond to the range of issues raised within the resident’s 12 emails.
Within one of the landlord’s emails, sent in July 2023, it asked the resident whether she was receiving any support for her mental health. It was good practice that it recognised the distress she was in and enquired whether appropriate support was in place.
Within the same email in July 2023, the landlord noted that the resident had secured a home helper to assist her with clearing items from her property. It told her it welcomed this development. With the resident’s permission, it arranged to speak to the home helper in August 2023.
During the call, and in a follow up email, the landlord explained to the home helper the action that was required to improve the condition of the property and comply with fire safety regulations. It also discussed the frequency of the resident’s contact. Following the call, the home helper confirmed in an email that she had spoken to the resident and told her that the landlord “cannot respond to all the texts and messages and it can be overwhelming.” This demonstrated that the landlord made reasonable efforts to manage the resident’s expectations regarding contact.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and mental distress at that time, it was a positive step that the landlord liaised directly with the home helper. She was in a position to assist the resident with working towards tenancy compliance.
The home helper advised the landlord in September 2023 that the resident was in the process of securing an advocate. The landlord asked the resident to complete permission forms to enable the advocate to communicate and act on the resident’s behalf. The resident completed and returned the forms to the landlord in October 2023. It then sent her a letter to confirm that its records had been updated to reflect the resident’s contact preference. This was that all contact with the resident was to be made through the advocate. It said this would include all communications about rent, tenancy terms and conditions, repairs, concerns about health and wellbeing, booking appointments, and complaints.
The resident sent the landlord 3 detailed emails between 15 November and 20 November 2023. In these she explained again about the impact of the landlord’s NOSP decision on her health and wellbeing. She said she could no longer read emails from the landlord “due to the extreme symptoms they produce”. She asked the landlord to liaise only with her advocate and solicitor. She stated, “please do not contact me directly.” Given this instruction and given that the contact arrangement with the advocate was already in place, it was appropriate that the landlord did not respond to these emails.
The landlord instead sent the advocate an email on 27 November 2023 asking to speak with her. The advocate asked the landlord to email her as she was unavailable for a call that day. The landlord responded by email the following day. It provided some background information along with an update regarding the NOSP. The landlord therefore did not ignore the concerns raised by the resident in her emails. It instead appropriately redirected its response through the advocate, as requested by the resident.
The landlord created a file note which stated that it did not respond to the November 2023 emails due to the advocacy arrangement. It created a similar file note in December 2023 when it did not return 15 voicemails left by the resident on a member of staff’s work mobile during the middle of the night. This was good record keeping. It evidenced the landlord made a conscious decision not to respond due to the resident’s contact preferences, as opposed to failing to respond due to an oversight.
In January 2024, the resident left further voicemails in the middle of night on the same member of staff’s mobile phone. The landlord appropriately emailed the advocate about this. It also advised the advocate about an email the resident had sent it that month in which derogatory language was used about a member of staff. It asked the advocate to discuss contact with the resident. It suggested that any information the resident wished to pass on to the landlord, should come through the advocate. Given the previously agreed lines of communication, which the landlord was adhering to, this was a reasonable suggestion.
The landlord continued to email the advocate, rather than the resident, in relation to both the NOSP and the reports of ASB made against her. It advised the advocate in March 2024 that it was arranging to send the NOSP to the resident’s solicitor. When it received advice in May 2024 that it should deliver the NOSP to the resident’s home address, it anticipated the distress this might cause her. It therefore gave the advocate advance warning and suggested she ensured support was in place for the resident when she received the NOSP. Once the landlord delivered the NOSP, it emailed the advocate to confirm it had been served and provided her with a copy of it. This was good practice.
These actions demonstrate that the landlord was not only respecting the resident’s wishes regarding contact but was willing to proactively work with third parties towards a common goal. The common goal was to support the resident to comply with her tenancy agreement. This was good practice.
The landlord reasonably explained in both complaint responses that it had not responded to some of the resident’s emails due to the contact arrangements in place. It advised her she could change this arrangement if she wished. It asked her to agree that if the arrangement were to continue, all contact from the resident should be issued through the advocate. It suggested this would assist with managing the resident’s expectations regarding contact. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint that it had not responded to her correspondence. It was respectful as it recognised that the resident had the autonomy to change her preference regarding contact at any time.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of correspondence from the resident.

Response to the resident’s request for a hard copy of the tenancy agreement

Another issue the resident complained about was that the landlord was not willing to provide her with a hard copy of the tenancy agreement. She wished to review it given the landlord had advised her it intended to issue a NOSP on the grounds of her failure to comply with the agreement. She explained to the landlord that she had misplaced her copy. This was understandable given it was over 20 years previously that the agreement had been signed. She asked the landlord on 28 June 2023 to send her a hard copy by post. She asked again on 24 August 2023. The landlord emailed her a copy on 29 September 2023.
The resident told the landlord in emails sent on 20 November 2023, 15 January 2024 and 23 February 2024 that she required a hard copy of the tenancy agreement. The landlord acknowledged this request in its email of 1 March 2024. It said that a hard copy had been provided to the resident’s solicitor in response to a subject access request. It said it could include a further copy with the NOSP when it was being served. Although this was a reasonable suggestion, the landlord did not acknowledge that it took 8 months to respond to the resident’s request for a hard copy of the agreement.
The landlord did not acknowledge the full extent of the delay in its stage 2 complaint response issued on 14 June 2024. It acknowledged there had been a delay, apologised and reasonably offered the resident £100 compensation. However, it stated that it complied with her request on 29 September 2023 when it emailed her a copy of the agreement. It therefore overlooked that there was a further delay in issuing her with a hard copy.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a hard copy of the tenancy agreement. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble she spent in pursuing this. This is in addition to the £100 offered in the stage 2 complaint response.
It is not clear from the evidence whether a hard copy of the tenancy agreement was sent to the resident once the NOSP was delivered in May 2024. We therefore order the landlord to send her a hard copy of the agreement if it has not already done so.

Response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of staff

Where complaints about staff conduct are raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there was misconduct. Terms and conditions of employment are set out in a contractual agreement between a landlord and its staff. It is for the landlord to decide whether any personnel action is warranted. As such, we are unable to direct that specific action is taken against a member of staff. Our role is to assess whether the landlord undertook a proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns and acted in a manner that was fair and reasonable overall.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that if a complaint is made about a member of staff, it will be managed as a one stage (stage 2) investigation by a line manager. When raising her complaint about the NOSP and ASB, the resident said she felt harassed and bullied by a member of staff. The landlord assured her in its stage 1 response that it took such complaints seriously. It asked her to clarify which member of staff she was referring to. The resident confirmed the complaint was about the case manager who issued the NOSP. The landlord said in its stage 2 response to the complaint about the NOSP and ASB that a line manager would investigate the staff conduct complaint in line with its complaints policy and internal processes.
The landlord advised the Ombudsman that this was subsequently discussed with the relevant line manager. She decided that no further investigation into the staff member’s conduct was required. This was because there were no specific reports concerning conduct beyond the case manager’s handling of the case and serving of the NOSP. The landlord advised us that compliance cases are reviewed every 6-8 weeks by line managers. The Ombudsman has reviewed the case file. It reflects that the case manager periodically discussed the case with her line manager and other relevant colleagues. Significant steps, such as the decision to issue the NOSP, were agreed with the line manager in advance.
The line manager further reviewed the handling of the case during the complaints process as she issued the stage 1 response to the NOSP and ASB complaint. Given this, the landlord concluded that the line manager had already reviewed the case manager’s conduct as part of the original complaint investigation. She therefore determined that no further action or investigation was required. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has provided us with a reasonable and proportionate explanation for its decision. However, the landlord failed to communicate this to the resident.
The landlord told the resident in the stage 2 response to the ASB and NOSP complaint that it would investigate her staff conduct concerns in line with its complaint policy. The policy states a stage 2 investigation will take place. Although the landlord advised us that it later determined no further investigation was required, it reached this decision by carrying out a preliminary investigation. It was therefore in a position to issue a separate stage 2 complaint response to the resident, as required by its policy, into the complaint about staff conduct. It could reasonably have provided her with an explanation of its findings, as outlined above, in that stage 2 response without disclosing any confidential personnel information.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of staff. This was due to it not issuing a formal response to the complaint as required by its complaints policy. It is evident from the resident’s later communications with both the landlord and the Ombudsman, that she believed the landlord had not taken her complaint about staff conduct seriously. By not providing her with an explanation of its findings, the landlord missed an opportunity to assure her that it had.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of tenancy compliance issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of correspondence from the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a hard copy of the tenancy agreement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of staff.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It should be issued in line with the resident’s contact preferences which we understand are, at present, that all communication from the landlord should go through her advocate.
2. pay the resident £1,600 compensation as follows:
  1. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in the landlord’s handling of tenancy compliance issues.
  2. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
  3. £100 for time and trouble caused by the service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a hard copy of the tenancy agreement.
  4. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of staff.
  5. £200 being the compensation offered in the stage 2 complaint response. If this has already been paid to the resident, it may be deducted from the £1,600 ordered.
3. send the resident a hard copy of the tenancy agreement if it has not already done so.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord to consider reviewing its process for recording all communication via staff mobile phones, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website).