London Borough of Croydon (202303078)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303078

London Borough of Croydon

28 January 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. signup to a property.
3. management transfer request.
4. concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant of the landlord since March 2013. She lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat.
On 20 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that “gangs of youths” had returned to her estate. She explained that they were carrying out “criminal activities”. She asked the landlord to investigate the matter and requested that the police return to remove them from the estate. On 13 January 2023 the resident raised concerns that a group of people were filming her front door. It is unclear whether the landlord responded to either report.
On or around 13 February 2023 the resident was due to sign a new tenancy and move to a different property (property A.) However, the landlord had to cancel the signup because the fobs for the communal doors of the building were not working.
On 22 March 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint. She said:
1. she was concerned about the delay in signing the tenancy for property A. She said that the delay had been over a month.
2. that the landlord was unable to tell her when it would fix the fobs and when she would be able to move into property A was causing her stress. This was because she was moving due to “safety concerns” at her current address.
During this period, the resident continued to raise concerns about ASB on her estate. The landlord told her that it would work with her to resolve the ASB. It also asked the police to patrol the resident’s estate.
On 11 April 2023 the resident signed the tenancy for property A at the landlord’s office. On the same day, she reported to the landlord that the communal door fobs were not working, therefore she was unable to gain access to property A. She explained that a removal company was due to move her belongings the next day. She asked it to resolve the issue with the fobs.
On 13 April 2023 the resident refused property A. She told the landlord that she had done so because it had given her a faulty fob and did not respond to her request to resolve the issue. The landlord accepted her refusal and confirmed that she would continue to live at her current address.
In early May 2023 the resident requested a management transfer and added further concerns to her complaint. She said:
1. the landlord intentionally gave her a faulty fob for property A so she could not move in.
2. the “gang” on the estate were calling her a snitch and she was scared that they would do something to her. She was concerned that the landlord was not doing anything to remove them from the estate.
3. she did not have anyone to talk to or any support.
On 10 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it was working with the police and other partners in relation to “the group of young people congregating on the estate”.
2. the resident should continue to liaise with it and call the police if she felt at risk.
3. the issues with the communal door fobs for property A was a borough wide issue. It had to wait for a third-party engineer to programme the communal front door before it could issue new fobs. It had worked with its internal departments to speed up the process.
4. the fob that was given to the resident on the day of the signup was tested by an officer who was able to gain entry. The fob may have become faulty by the time it was issued to the resident. It had not intentionally given her a faulty fob.
5. the resident could apply for a management transfer. It provided her with a website link to do so.
During this period, the landlord asked the police whether it would support the resident’s management transfer request. The police confirmed that it would.
On 30 May 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated her concerns that the landlord was not taking action to resolve the ASB and that it had intentionally given her a faulty fob for property A.
She added that an officer (officer B) had refused to speak or meet with her to discuss the ASB on the estate. She felt that his conduct was unfair and discriminatory against her. She said that he had blocked her management transfer request as he stated that there was no gang activity on the estate.
In July 2023 the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord. It is unclear whether the landlord acted on those reports.
Over the following months the landlord asked the police for further supporting evidence for the resident’s management transfer request. It is unclear whether it received the requested information.
On 11 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. the issue with the fobs was a borough wide issue relating to the telephone lines. It was not done intentionally to prevent the resident from accessing property A.
2. it had carried out a thorough review of the resident’s concerns about officer B’s conduct. It had found that on a few occasions his responses to the resident were delayed. However, it had not found that he had intentionally treated her unfairly.
3. it had been working closely with the police and other partners. This included joint estate walkabouts. The partnership work had resulted in a number of arrests and the residents that had been causing issues had been permanently removed from the estate. It said that the work was ongoing and asked the resident to report concerns to the police.
4. it did not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the resident was in danger or unsafe or targeted by gangs at her current address. Therefore, it was unable to support her request for a management transfer as the evidence did not meet its current threshold. It explained that once the police completed a disclosure form and indicated that she was in danger or being targeted, it would reevaluate the transfer request.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has explained that the issues highlighted in her complaint affected her health. This meant that she could no longer continue with her university studies. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the concerns that were raised by the resident.
The resident raised concerns that the ASB has been ongoing since 2018. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint that she referred to this Service for investigation. Therefore, this assessment has focussed on the period from December 2022 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Any reference to earlier events is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy and procedures states it will:
1. acknowledge every ASB report that it receives from a resident within 3 working days.
2. make a record of each significant stage of any ASB case.
3. undertake a vulnerability assessment with the complainant.
4. update its records every time a resident provides new information that triggers any kind of action.
5. issue diary sheets to the complainant to record details of any nuisance behaviour.
6. contact complainants regularly to update them on the progress it is making with their case.
On 22 December 2022 and 13 January 2023, the resident reported that the “gang” had returned to her estate and was causing ASB. She asked the landlord to ask the police to remove them from the estate.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will acknowledge every ASB report within 3 working days. The evidence provided does not demonstrate that it responded to either of the resident’s reports in accordance with its policy. This was inappropriate.
The landlord’s policy also states that it should carry out a vulnerability assessment and issue diary sheets as part of its initial steps in a new ASB case. It is unclear whether the landlord had a case open at the time of the resident’s report. Nonetheless, given the resident’s new reports, it would have been reasonable for the landlord’s t review or update the assessment where required. It would have also been reasonable for it to have considered whether the resident required diary sheets. That it did not do so was a further departure from policy.
While there is some evidence that the landlord discussed the resident’s concerns internally in January 2023, whether it took meaningful action during this time is unclear. For example, there is no evidence that it specifically asked the police to patrol the estate. This may have gone some way to support the resident’s request for the police to remove the “gang” from the estate.
In early February 2023 the landlord and police had a meeting to discuss the ASB. That was positive. However, we have not been provided with any contemporaneous note relating to the meeting or minutes. The landlord’s policy states that it should record every significant stage of an ASB case. Given the nature of the meeting, it would have been reasonable for it to have been documented. That the Ombudsman has not been provided of evidence that the landlord appropriately recorded the outcome of the meeting is a failing. In addition, this has meant that it has also failed to demonstrate that it reasonably proceeded with any actions that it may have agreed to take as a result of the meeting.
In March 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was concerned that no action had been taken to resolve the ASB. She was also concerned about the lack of communication from the landlord. In response, the landlord told the resident that it would ask the police to patrol her estate and would work with her.
There is some evidence to suggest that the landlord followed through with its commitment and asked the police to patrol the estate. However, the resident had asked that the police remove the “gangs” in her December 2022 correspondence to the landlord. The evidence suggests that the landlord only asked the police if patrols could be undertaken in March 2023. This means that the resident’s request for police support went unaddressed for approximately 3 months. It is unclear why the landlord did not consult with the police sooner, and why this was not raised when it met with the police in early February. In the absence of any explanation, this was a failing.
The outcome of the landlord’s request for patrols at this time is unknown. It is unclear whether the police responded. However, if it did not, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to chase the matter to try to gain a response. There is also no evidence that the landlord updated the resident. While the evidence does not suggest that the police had agreed to carry out patrols, the landlord should reasonably have kept the resident updated with the action it had taken.
The resident continued to raise concerns about ASB in April and early May 2023. It was not until 9 May 2023 that the landlord discussed internally that it should open an ASB case and issue the resident diary sheets. The resident had first reported ASB in December 2022. It is unclear why the landlord was only discussing opening a case some 5 months later. The landlord’s actions were not in accordance with its policy and this was a further failing.
Furthermore, there is also no evidence to suggest that it responded to or discussed the resident’s reports with her. This meant that it failed to demonstrate that it followed through with its commitment to work with her. In addition, it was not align with its policy that stated it would regularly update its residents on the progress of the case. Not doing so meant that it mismanaged the resident’s expectations. This would have caused her distress and inconvenience as she reasonably expected the landlord to work with her as it stated that it would.
At this time, the resident also raised concerns that she did not have support. This comment should have prompted the landlord to signpost the resident to support agencies. It should have also prompted the landlord to carry out or review its vulnerability assessment for the resident. This would have ensured that the resident was adequately supported. While the reason that it did not is unclear, that it did not was unreasonable. It is noted that the landlord missed another opportunity to signpost the resident to support agencies when she reiterated her concerns later in the case. It also meant that her concern that she did not have support went unresolved. That would have exacerbated her distress further.
In the resident’s escalated complaint she said that the landlord had failed to take action to resolve the ASB. In response, the landlord explained that it was completing regular estate walkabouts with the police which had resulted in some arrests. While this may have been the case, the landlord has not provided contemporaneous evidence in relation to these. Therefore we have been unable to consider this further.
It also stated that the resident should report any future concerns to the police. This was reasonable. However, it missed another opportunity to ensure that it was taking steps within its own ASB policy to work with the resident. Given that the resident was concerned that it was not taking action, it would have been reasonable for it to have committed to updating her regularly on the progress of the case. This would have been in accordance with its own policy that stated it would. Furthermore, it may have gone some way to reassure the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously and taking reasonable steps to resolve the ASB.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. demonstrate that it acknowledged, responded to, and kept in reasonable contact with the resident as per its ASB policy on several occasions throughout this case.
2. provide the resident with diary sheets and missed opportunities to signpost her to support agencies.
3. demonstrate that it carried out a vulnerability assessment with the resident.
4. demonstrate that it recorded the resident’s reports and other relevant information, such as the outcome of any meetings on its system in accordance with its ASB policy.
5. timely act on the resident’s reports and requests.
6. demonstrate that it took reasonable action to resolve the resident’s reports of ASB as it stated that it had in its complaint responses.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it recorded the resident’s ASB reports and other relevant information to the case as per its policy is indicative of record keeping issues. Therefore, we encourage the landlord to review its record keeping practices alongside with reference to the findings and recommendations of our May 2023 Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s signup to a property

The resident was due to move into property A around 13 February 2023. However, the landlord cancelled the signup because the communal door fobs were not working.
The resident raised concerns about the cancellation and the delay in signing up to property A in her March 2023 complaint. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that there had been borough wide issues with the communal doors and fobs. The issues were in relation to the phone lines that operated the door system. The evidence shows that the issue with the fobs were outside of the landlord’s control. Therefore, what action it could do to resolve the matter would have been limited. It explained that it worked with its partners to speed along the process. This would have been reasonable. However, we have not seen evidence that it did so. Therefore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to reduce the delay in resolving the issue within its own remit.
After the resident signed up to property A on the 11 April 2023, she reported to the landlord that she was unable to gain access to her flat as the communal door fobs were not working. She asked the landlord to reset the fobs that day. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her that day or the following day. She raised this failure in her complaint. As the resident could not access the property and the landlord had failed to respond, she cancelled a removal company that she had booked for the next day.
The landlord apologised for its lack of response in its stage 2 complaint response. However, given the circumstances, this did not go far enough to put matters right. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report that the fob was faulty meant that it did not provide her with any advice or assistance about how else she could access the property. If it had done so, the resident may not have needed to cancel the removal van. She also may not have felt the need to refuse property A and return to a home that she considered was unsafe.
It is unclear why the landlord failed to respond. However, as it did not, the resident was caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. To put things right, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered offering the resident some financial compensation for the inconvenience she was caused.
The resident said in her complaint that she considered the landlord had intentionally given her faulty fobs. The resident’s feelings about the matter are acknowledged. In response, the landlord confirmed that the fobs had been used and were working previously prior to being handed to the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord had checked the fobs; however, we have not seen any contemporaneous evidence in relation to this and therefore cannot verify the landlord’s comments. However, it is noted that this was a widespread issue and there is nothing to suggest that this was an issue that affected the resident in isolation. The inconvenience and disappointment that has been caused to the resident is noted.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. demonstrate that it took reasonable steps within its own remit to mitigate the delay to rectify the issue with the communal door and fobs.
2. respond to the resident when she reported that the fobs were not working.
3. demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to check that the fobs were working before it issued them to the resident.
Those failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to property A. A series of orders have been made in relation to the highlighted failures in this case. This includes an award of compensation which has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

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

There is no obligation on a landlord to agree a management transfer. Such transfers are discretionary and will depend on the individual circumstances. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether or not a management transfer should have been agreed by the landlord. Rather, our role is to review the evidence and determine whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and exercised its discretion in a manner that was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
The landlord’s management transfer policy states that:
1. a management transfer is where an urgent managed move is agreed on the basis that a resident is not safe to remain in their current home due to violence or threats of violence.
2. it would contact agencies to provide supporting evidence for management transfers. In some cases, it would apply for a police disclosure for further supporting evidence.
In early May 2023, the resident requested a management transfer as part of her complaint. She said that staying in her current home was unsafe due to ongoing ASB. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord provided information on how the resident could apply for a transfer. That was reasonable.
It is unclear what happened over the following weeks. Nonetheless the landlord asked the police to confirm whether it would support a management transfer for the resident. This was reasonable and in line with its management transfer policy that stated that it would contact relevant agencies for supporting evidence.
The police told the landlord on 18 May 2023 that it would support a move for the resident. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any further action to consider the request at that time. It was not until 20 July 2023 that it sought additional supporting evidence from the police. This included a request for a disclosure of further information. While the request was in line with its policy, it was made 2 months after the police indicated that it would support a move. The reason for the delay is unclear, but that there was one was unreasonable.
The landlord chased the police for the supporting evidence in August 2023 and on 7 September 2023. This was appropriate. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had not received sufficient evidence from the police to support her management transfer request. It said if the police provided evidence that she was in personal danger from the ASB, it would reevaluate her request. This was reasonable.
In her escalated complaint the resident raised concerns that officer B had “blocked” her management transfer. However, the landlord did not address these concerns. Not doing so meant that it failed to respond to the resident’s specific concern. Therefore, the landlord failed to act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that states landlords must respond to all points raised in a complaint.
Overall, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s request for a management transfer was reasonable. It sought information from the police and acted in accordance with its policy. However, it then made a further request to the police and did not chase it for a response. As such, no further action was taken to consider the resident’s request. We cannot say whether further information from the police may have resulted in a management transfer being granted; however, the landlord failed to take action to gather evidence so an informed decision could be made. This was unreasonable.
It also failed to address the resident’s specific concern that officer B had “blocked” her request. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was staff misconduct. Instead, the Ombudsman can determine whether the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns in line with its policy, and whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
We have not been provided with a policy that references staff conduct. Therefore, it is unclear whether the landlord has such a policy or guidance in place. In absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.
In her escalated complaint, the resident raised concerns that officer B had “refused” to speak and meet with her. She said that he had treated her unfairly and discriminatorily.
In its response the landlord said that it had carried out a thorough review of the resident’s concerns. It explained it could not see that officer B had treated her unfairly. The landlord’s response suggests that it had carried out some investigation into the resident’s concerns.
However, this Service has not seen any evidence which demonstrates the investigation that was undertaken by the landlord. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to give this Service any details relating to an individual’s employment. However, the landlord would be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. There is no evidence that it did so in this case.
Therefore, it has failed to demonstrate that its response to the resident was based on a meaningful and appropriate investigation. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy, in time at the events complained of, stated that:
1. it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
2. it would respond to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
3. when it could not provide a full response within its timescales, it would advise the resident and provide a revised timescale as to when they could expect a full response to their complaint.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 March 2023. This was not acknowledged until 18 April 2023. This was approximately a month later. While the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one was a departure from its own policy timescales. That was a failing.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was due on 27 June 2023. However, on 29 June 2023 it informed the resident that its response would be delayed. That it informed the resident that its response would be delayed after the original response due date was unreasonable. This meant that it failed to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations as to when she would receive its response.
It also failed to include a revised date for when the resident would likely expect to receive the response. That it did not was a deviation from its own policy that stated that it would do so in such circumstances. This was a further failing.
Furthermore, the landlord’s response was delayed for longer than 10 working days. The Code 2022 states that if an extension longer than 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties. There is no evidence that suggests that the landlord did so. If it had, it may have mitigated the resident from incurring further time and trouble chasing it for an update on 28 July and 4 August.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 11 September 2023. This was approximately 74 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint. The landlord stated that the delay was because it was waiting for further information. While the landlord’s comments are noted, this does not satisfactorily explain why the response was so significantly delayed.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. acknowledge the resident’s complaint within its own timescales.
2. advise the resident that its stage 2 complaint response would be delayed in a timely manner.
3. reasonably provide the resident with a revised stage 2 complaint response timeframe or agree a deadline response with her as per its policy.
4. issue its stage 2 complaint response within its own policy timescales.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
On 8 February 2024 the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlord must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s signup to a property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £900 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s sign up to property A.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
  4. £150 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  5. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. contact the resident to:
  1. ascertain whether she has any current ASB concerns. The landlord should consider opening an ASB case and following its relevant procedures if it has not done so already. This should include signposting the resident to support agencies, providing diary sheets and agreeing frequency of contact where relevant.
  2. ascertain whether she would still like to request a management transfer. If should process her request in line with its policy.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a case review into the failings outlined in this report. It should:
1. ensure staff are trained/retrained on its ASB policy and procedures. In particular, it should ensure that staff are recording relevant information on its system and residents reasonably updated.
2. ensure staff are appropriately progressing management transfers. In particular, where relevant, staff are requesting supporting evidence from partnership agencies in a timely manner.
3. remind staff that where concerns about staff conduct are raised an investigation into the report(s) should be carried out accordingly. A clear and accurate record of the investigation and any follow-on actions should be created and maintained. This should include, but not be limited to, minutes of meetings, call notes, details of any agreed actions, and confirmation once actions have been undertaken.
4. consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its complaint policies and practices against the statutory Code.