Dacorum Borough Council (202405607)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405607

Dacorum Borough Council

14 July 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by neighbours of his previous property.
2. The landlords response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments at his previous property.
3. The landlord’s non-disclosure of ASB reports about the resident’s current neighbour.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about flooding in the garden of his current property.
5. The landlord’s decision to refer the resident to mental health services.
6. The service of a community protection warning (CPW) on the resident.
7. A staff member declining to visit the resident at home.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a council. His current property is a 2–bedroom house and the tenancy started in March 2024, after he completed a mutual exchange. The tenancy for his previous property started in July 2023. The landlord is aware the resident and his wife are vulnerable due to a number of medical conditions that affect their physical mobility.
In August 2023 the resident reported children in the area were throwing stones at his windows and intimidating him and his wife, since she had asked them to stop playing football. He advised he did not know where they lived. The same month, in internal communication, the landlord said there was nothing it could do about this unless the resident knew where the children lived.
The following month the resident reported his wife had been verbally abused and threatened by a neighbour. The landlord passed the resident’s report to the council’s community safety team (CST) and asked it to make contact with him, which it did and subsequently progressed an ASB investigation.
On 9 November 2023, during a surveyor’s visit, the resident said he needed a grab rail in the bathroom and that an occupational therapist (OT) had previously recommended this. The landlord made enquiries with the council’s adult social care team (ASC) and, following a recommendation from them, fitted a grab rail the following month.
The resident made his first complaint on 2 December 2023. He said this was about the handling of his ASB reports, including a lack of response to his concerns and poor communication. He also said the landlord had discriminated against him by not implementing ASC recommendations, including installing a grab rail and providing allocated parking.
On 15 January 2024 the council issued CPW’s to the resident and his wife.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the first complaint, sent on 19 January 2024, said the complaint was not upheld as it had acted reasonably and appropriately in its handling of the issues.
Two days later, the resident asked to escalate his first complaint to stage 2. He said the stage 1 response was incorrect and the landlord had hidden its failures. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the first complaint, sent on 14 March 2024, agreed with the stage 1 outcome and confirmed the complaint was not upheld.
In April 2024 the resident confirmed he had moved into his new property and raised concerns about the handling of his ASB reports about previous neighbours. The council replied and suggested a meeting to discuss his concerns. The resident asked for this to be at his home due to his medical conditions. The council declined to meet him at his home and suggested meeting at its offices or arranging a telephone call.
On 19 April 2024 the resident made his second complaint. He said:
1. The landlord was aware his current neighbour was causing a nuisance by playing loud music and this had resulted in the previous resident of his property moving out.
2. The landlord had not told him about a flooding issue in the garden of his current property before he moved in, despite knowing about this. He had spent £1,000 to resolve the issue and did not feel he should have had to pay for this.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 8 May 2024 regarding his complaint. Following this, it completed a safeguarding referral to mental health services.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the second complaint, sent on 16 May 2024, said it was not required to share information about his current neighbour, as this would be a breach of data protection. It confirmed he had not made any reports of flooding in the garden prior to completing the garden works and declined to pay compensation for the expense he had incurred.
The resident escalated his second complaint on 1 June 2024. He felt the stage 1 complaint had not been dealt with honestly or fairly. He reported that the stage 1 case handler had acted inappropriately by referring him to mental health services, and he had asked for an apology but this had been ignored.
The landlord’s stage 2 response to the second complaint, sent on 11 July 2024, said the stage 1 investigation was handled appropriately and the outcome was justified. It confirmed it was satisfied the stage 1 case handler had followed its safeguarding policy by referring him to mental health services.
In March 2025 the resident asked us to investigate his complaints. He said he wanted the landlord to acknowledge its failings, move him, and pay compensation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside our jurisdiction:
1. The service of a community protection warning (CPW) on the resident.
2. The council declining to visit the resident at home.
The CPW was issued to the resident by the CST. Similarly, the member of staff who declined to visit the resident at home was the head of the CST. Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme says we cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.
The CST is a function of the local authority that sits outside its capacity as a landlord. Therefore, the actions and decisions of staff members within this team fall outside our jurisdiction; and would be matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to consider. As a result, these matters are not considered further in this report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told the landlord and us that he is dissatisfied with its handling of his ASB reports about his current neighbour. There is no evidence the landlord has raised or responded to this as a formal complaint. Therefore, the resident’s concerns about this cannot form part of this investigation. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to confirm with the resident if he wants this dealt with as a formal complaint and, if so, raise one and respond in line with its current complaints policy.
The resident has said he wants the landlord to move him to a 2–bedroom bungalow. We cannot order the landlord to move the resident, regardless of any failures we identify. This is because, while this may put things right for the resident, it would be unfair to other applicants waiting for a move to this type of property who have higher priority than him. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to write to the resident confirming his rehousing options, including what, if any, support it will provide him to move due to his current ASB concerns.

ASB reports about neighbours of the previous property

The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. Category 2 ASB includes verbal abuse and threats of violence; and that these will be dealt with by the CST.
2. Category 3 ASB includes neighbour nuisance, misuse of communal areas, disputes between children and lifestyle disputes. It confirms these will be investigated by the landlord.
When the resident reported problems with children in the area on 10 and 17 August 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord dealt with this as category 3 ASB. Its ASB policy says for these types of reports it will make contact with the resident in 5 working days. However, there is no evidence the landlord did, which contravened its ASB policy. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
The landlord said in an internal email of 18 August 2023, that it could not open a case as there was nothing it could it do unless the resident knew where the children lived. We have seen no evidence the landlord told the resident this or explained why no further action would be taken. This left him feeling that the landlord did not care about the issues affecting him. This amounts to maladministration.
It can be challenging for landlords to investigate and address ASB where it does not know the full details of the people responsible. However, in this case, as the resident had identified that the children lived in the area, there were options it could have considered, such as sending a general letter or carrying out door knocking.
Further, the resident said he had reported these issues to the Police and so the landlord could have liaised with the local Safer Neighbourhood Police team to try to identify the children involved. Therefore, it is our view that the landlord could have taken action in respect of the resident’s reports, particularly given the households known vulnerabilities. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
When the resident reported threats and verbal abuse from neighbours in September 2023, the landlord referred this to the CST. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy, which says the CST deal with category 2 ASB cases, including threats and verbal abuse.
The CST’s subsequent handling of the ASB falls outside the scope of our investigation for reasons set out above. We are aware the resident has raised concerns about its handling of his requests for additional fencing, information sharing, staff conduct and a lack of action being taken. As all of these actions and decisions were taken by the CST, we cannot assess them. The resident can contact the LGSCO if he wishes to raise these matters further.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. We have made orders for it to apologise and pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge these or put things rights. The redress we have ordered is in relation to the landlord’s failures only. As we cannot assess or determine failure in respect of the CST’s actions or decisions, we cannot order redress in recognition of this.

Reasonable adjustments at the previous property

The landlord was responsible for installing a grab rail in the property in line with its aids and adaptations policy. This says it will consider completing minor adaptations, including fitting grab rails.
The resident has raised concerns about the suitability of his previous property from the point it was allocated to him. He was allocated this property as a result of applying to join the council’s housing register, which is a function that sits outside its capacity as a landlord. Therefore, this issue falls outside the scope of our investigation and would be a matter for the LGSCO to consider.
We can see the resident told the CST that he was waiting for a grab rail to be fitted in the current property from at least 28 September 2023. As we cannot assess the CST’s actions, we cannot comment on whether it handled this request appropriately. The landlord became aware of the resident’s request for a grab rail during a surveyor’s inspection on 9 November 2023. Therefore, our assessment of its response to this issue starts from this date.
Following the surveyor’s visit, the landlord made internal enquiries the following day, which resulted in contact to ASC 5 days later, on 15 November 2023. ASC confirmed an assessment was pending for the resident. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says an OT must complete a referral and submit recommendations for it to consider any adaptations. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not install a grab rail until it had received this.
The landlord received the OT’s assessment and recommendations on 22 November 2023. It installed the grab rail 13 working days later, on 9 December 2023. This was in line with its aids and adaptations policy, which says it aims to complete minor adaptation works within 20 working days.
The resident has said he fell in the shower due to not having a grab rail installed and this resulted in injury. We cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s injury, as this is more appropriately considered via a public liability insurance claim. Therefore, we cannot comment further on this issue.
The resident has said when the property was let to him, he was told there was allocated parking, but this was not the case. We are not investigating the circumstances in which the property was let to him, for reasons already set out. Therefore, we cannot comment further on this concern.
In response to the resident’s request for allocated parking, the landlord said there was ample parking in the communal car park and it did not allocate spaces to individuals or households. While this may have been the landlord’s standard practice, as the resident had asked for allocated parking because of his disability, the landlord should have considered whether it could make a reasonable adjustment in accordance with the Equality Act.
We have seen no evidence the landlord considered this or explained to the resident why it could not facilitate his request as a reasonable adjustment. Particularly as the landlord itself confirmed there was ample parking in the communal car park, which indicates other residents would not have been disadvantaged had it agreed the resident’s request.
The landlord’s failure to properly consider and respond to this request amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that it was discriminating against him. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge this or put things right.
We acknowledge that the resident believes the landlord discriminated against him. We cannot make a finding in respect of this, as this is a matter for the courts. However, we can consider whether the landlord showed due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act. The landlord’s actions in respect of installing the grab rail were reasonable and in line with its policy. Therefore, it is our view that it did show due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act in relation to that point.
However, there is no evidence it properly considered the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment in respect of allocated parking. Therefore, it did not show due regard for its full responsibilities under the Equality Act. We therefore order the landlord to review this matter to identify why the parking request was not identified as a reasonable adjustment request, and confirm in writing to the resident and us what actions and/ or improvements it will take to prevent similar failures in the future.
The resident has said the landlord gave allocated parking to the new tenants of his previous property. While frustrating for him, we cannot comment on this as our investigation is focused on the resident’s circumstances only.

Non-disclosure of ASB reports about the resident’s current neighbour

When the resident asked the landlord why it had not told him about ASB reports previously made about his new neighbour, following his mutual exchange in March 2024, the landlord said it was not required to share this information for data protection reasons. This is correct. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not tell the resident about any reports it had received about the neighbour.
In some circumstances, it can be appropriate for a landlord to share details about general ASB in an area with new, incoming residents, if deemed appropriate and relevant. In this case, the resident moved into his current property via a mutual exchange. As this was instigated by him, rather than the landlord, the onus was on the resident to make enquiries with the exchange partner about any ASB issues in the area, to help inform his decision. If the resident did not do this or the exchange partner was not forthcoming with the resident about any issues, this was not a failure by the landlord.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s non-disclosure of ASB reports about the resident’s current neighbour.

Flooding in the garden of the current property

The resident first reported this issue to the landlord as part of his second stage 1 complaint on 19 April 2024. He said he had paid for works to be completed to resolve this issue and subsequently asked for compensation to cover the amount.
The landlord’s repairs handbook confirms that residents are responsible for reporting repairs promptly. It is reasonable that the landlord cannot be held responsible for a repair until it knows about this. In this case, the resident has confirmed he did not report the flooding issue to the landlord prior to completing his own works. This means he did not give it the opportunity to investigate or resolve the issue and so there was no failure in its handling of this matter. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to pay compensation for the costs incurred by the resident.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about flooding in the garden of his current property.

Decision to refer the resident to mental health services

The landlord completed a safeguarding referral to mental health services on 8 May 2024. This was following a call with the resident earlier that day, during which it noted he said he and his wife felt suicidal. The landlord’s safeguarding procedure says it will always take any threats of suicide seriously. Therefore, it was reasonable that it completed this referral, following the resident’s comments.
We note the resident was not in agreement about the referral being made and told the landlord the comments were made in anger. While this may have been the case, the landlord was not to know this and it was appropriate that it took the comments seriously, in line with its safeguarding procedure.
The landlord’s safeguarding procedure says consent should usually be sought in regards to safeguarding adults, but where there is a significant risk of harm consent may not be required. A risk of suicide would be a significant risk of harm and so it was reasonable that the landlord went ahead with the referral without the resident’s consent.
The landlord told the resident it would be making the referral, which was appropriate so that he was not surprised when follow up contact was made. We can see that the resident told the landlord in a follow up email on 8 May 2024 that he was fine, had a support network and did not need any mental health support. While this may have changed its decision about whether a referral was needed, the resident’s email was sent in the evening, after the landlord had already made the referral and so it was not in a position to change its decision.
The resident has said he believes the landlord was trying to get him sectioned by making this referral. Ultimately, the landlord has a responsibility to safeguard its residents. Where a resident expresses they are feeling suicidal, it is reasonable that the landlord makes referrals to seek help and support for that individual. In this case, the landlord did that and it confirmed in its stage 2 response to the second complaint that this was done from a position of concern rather than malice. This was appropriate to reassure the resident about its intentions regarding this action.
We understand the resident was upset by the landlord’s decision to refer him to mental health services. However, as it acted reasonably and in line with its safeguarding procedure, there was no maladministration in its decision. We note the resident has asked for an apology, but as there was no failure in the landlord’s actions, we have not ordered an apology or any other form of redress in respect of this.

Complaint handling

The resident’s first complaint was raised following an email on 2 December 2023, in which he expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of several issues. The landlord’s decision to deal with this as a complaint was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy. This said it defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of its services, actions or lack of action.
The landlord told the resident on 4 December 2023 that it would deal with his concerns as a formal complaint. While it subsequently did, we have seen no evidence that it formally acknowledged the complaint. Its complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. The landlord’s failure to do this left the resident uncertain on what was happening. This amounts to maladministration and resulted in him expending time and trouble chasing for an update, on 12 December 2023, as he had not heard anything.
On 22 December 2023 the landlord told the resident the stage 1 complaint investigation was on hold due to an ongoing police investigation. While it may have been appropriate to put a hold on the ASB investigation, it is unclear why the complaint investigation needed to be put on hold because of this. The resident had clearly set out his concerns to the landlord and the Police investigation would not restrict it from reviewing its handling of the issues. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to put the complaint on hold was unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. This meant the stage 1 response was delayed, as it did not restart the investigation until 5 January 2024 and subsequently sent the response on 19 January 2024.
The stage 1 response to the first complaint was sent in 31 working days. This was over the 10 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy at the time. The landlord told the resident on 5 January 2024 that the response deadline had been revised to 19 January 2024. While it went on to meet this, as the reason for the delay was unreasonable, so was the delay itself. Therefore, the delay amounts to maladministration.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response to the first complaint in 37 working days. This was over the 20 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy at the time. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in the response, which was disappointing for the resident. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord acknowledged the second stage 1 complaint in 3 working days. This was in line with the 5 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy. The landlord sent the stage 1 response to the second complaint in 18 working days. While this was over the 10 working day committed response time, the landlord agreed an extension with the resident on 8 May 2024. It confirmed it would respond by 24 May 2024, which it did. Therefore, this was not a failure by the landlord.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response to the second complaint in 29 working days. This was over the committed response time of 20 working days and the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this. This amounts to maladministration.
We acknowledge the resident’s complaints may have presented challenges for the landlord due to being about multiple issues across different service areas. Therefore, it is reasonable that it took the landlord longer than the target response times set out in its complaints policy. Where the landlord needs more time to respond to a complaint, it must tell the resident this, as it did for the stage 1 response to the second complaint. While it told him this in that instance, it did not consistently do this for all the complaints. This resulted in the resident not knowing when he would receive a response and made him feel the landlord was not taking these seriously.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to apologise to the resident and pay him £175 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction about the handling of a complaint he made on 25 September 2023, about the conduct of staff in the CST. As we cannot assess the actions of this team, for reasons already set out, we cannot assess the handling of the associated complaint. This would be a matter for the LGSCO to consider.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside our jurisdiction:
1. The service of a CPW on the resident.
2. A member of staff declining to visit the resident at home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s:
  1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by neighbours of his previous property.
  2. Response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments at his previous property.
  3. Complaint handling.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s:
  1. Non-disclosure of ASB reports about the resident’s current neighbour.
  2. Handling of the resident’s concerns about flooding in the garden of his current property.
  3. Decision to refer the resident to mental health services.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for its:
  1. Handling of his ASB reports about neighbours of his previous property.
  2. Response to his request for a reasonable adjustment (allocated parking) at his previous property.
  3. Complaint handling.
2. Paid the resident £525 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for its handling of his ASB reports about neighbours of his previous property.
  2. £200 for its response to his request for a reasonable adjustment (allocated parking) at his previous property.
  3. £175 for its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to review the resident’s case to identify why his request for allocated parking was not identified as a reasonable adjustment request, and confirm in writing to the resident and us what actions and/ or improvements it will take to prevent similar failures in the future.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Confirm with the resident if he wants his concerns about its handling of his ASB reports about his current neighbour dealt with as a formal complaint. If so, raise and respond to this in line with its current complaints policy.
2. Write to the resident confirming his rehousing options, including what, if any, support it will provide to move him because of his current ASB concerns.