London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202124516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124516

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 March 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request to be rehoused.
3. Associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 3-bed house, which began in September 2011. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident’s neighbours are not tenants of the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord numerous times between 2019 and 2023 reporting ASB from her neighbours. She reported:
1. Neighbours were hiding under a sheet to spy on her and other vulnerable people in the area.
2. Theft and breaking into houses.
3. Neighbours listening in to her conversations and talking about her.
4. Damage to her property. Neighbours were using a drill to break the wall and make holes in her skirting board to spy on her whilst she was in the bathroom, damaged her porch, dug up her driveway and damaged her fence.
She also repeatedly asked the landlord to move her to a 2-bed property in another area. She said she wanted to move to be closer to family, due to the ASB, for medical reasons and to downsize. In 2021 the landlord told the resident it had closed its internal transfer list. It said it would be prioritising those with a severe and urgent need to move as it only had a small number of properties available. Also, she did not meet the threshold for a direct let and would need to consider alternative housing options to move.

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman expects complaints to be raised within a reasonable period, which is usually 6 months from the issue occurring. This Service acknowledges that the resident reported ASB in 2019 however, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and her request for rehousing from 21 April 2022 until the final complaint response on 16 May 2023.This is because as the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident told this Service she wants staff members to be held accountable for their actions. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with individual members of staff. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service may not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. When investigating a complaint about a landlord, we will consider the response of the landlord as a whole. The Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations will be made against the landlord rather than an individual.

Summary of events

On 21 April 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said a staff member was rude to her and she wanted to be moved as an emergency.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 April 2022. The resident said she did not want to pursue the complaint as she was not sure to whom she had spoken. The resident said she wanted to be moved on medical grounds and the landlord agreed to send her forms to complete. The landlord contacted the police the same day to ask for evidence of the reported ASB to support her request to move.
On 13 July 2022 the resident reported repairs due to damage caused by the neighbours. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 27 July 2022.
On 2 September 2022 the landlord contacted its letting team and asked if the resident could be downsized to a 1 bed property. The resident told the landlord on 9 September 2022 she needed a 2-bed property as she was having a carer assigned to her.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 12 September 2022 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 September 2022. The resident said she was unhappy with it’s handling of her reports of ASB. She said her neighbours had been harassing her and destroying parts of her property, she had mental health issues and would like to be rehoused to be closer to her family, and she filled in a medical form earlier in 2022, but never got a response. The landlord said it would respond to her complaint within 10 working days.
On 11 October 2022 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to provide its stage 1 complaint response within 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 October 2022. It said:
1. It could add the resident to its rehousing waiting list. However, it would take 18 to 24 months depending on the areas the resident would consider moving to.
2. It did not have many 2-bedroomed houses. If the resident wanted a house rather than a flat or maisonette, she would need to apply for a mutual exchange. It advised the resident how she could apply for a mutual exchange.
3. The resident could contact her local authority and apply to bid for alternative social housing.
4. It was sorry the resident felt she was not given appropriate support with the ASB issues. It contacted the resident and the police to get more information about the incidents reported, but it did not get a response.
5. The resident reported that neighbours were burrowing underneath her home and spying on her. It repaired the damage to the resident’s front porch on 1 September 2022, but acknowledged this did not resolve the ASB issues.
6. It had referred the resident to it’s ‘resident support leads’ who would contact her within 4 weeks to provide support with her wellbeing and mental health.
On 26 October 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to talk through its stage 1 complaint response with her.
The landlord contacted the resident on 31 October and 1 November 2022 to confirm it was looking for alternative accommodation for her, to check it held the correct details, and advise her on alternative housing options.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord told the resident it recognised there was a medical need within the household, however, she did not meet the threshold for a direct offer. It said she would need to consider a mutual exchange to move homes.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 17 November 2022.
On 21 November 2022 the landlord attempted to visit the resident to complete a welfare check, but she was not home. It made a referral to a ‘resident support lead’ to provide the resident with on-going support.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to update her that it was still looking for a suitable property for her. It said as she had only selected one area to move to, it was going to struggle to find a property for her and asked her if she wanted to consider other areas. It also asked her if she had applied for a mutual exchange and if she was bidding for a property with her local authority.
On 28 December 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord asking to be moved due to the ASB from neighbours. She said she kept getting sick, her body was worn down and the situation was “killing” her.
On 9 January 2023 the landlord records noted the resident had made several requests for a call back but not received a response. Internal correspondence raised concerns for the resident as she did not have any support from family or friends and was struggling with her mental health. The resident had reported ASB from neighbours and said that the police were victimising her.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 17 January 2023, but she did not answer.
In January 2023 the landlord continued to contact the resident to update her on her application to move.
The local authority arranged a multi-agency meeting for 9 February 2023 and requested the landlord attend.
On 2 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to measure one of her bedrooms as she felt her house should be deemed as having 2 bedrooms and not 3.
On 17 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said she called the landlord on 13 March 2023, and no one called her back, she wanted to know what was happening with her ASB case, and when she would be moved. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 20 March 2023 and said it would need time to investigate.
On 13 April 2023 the resident told the landlord she would like to be transferred to sheltered accommodation.
On 19 April 2023 the resident updated the landlord on the areas she was willing to move to. She confirmed she was bidding on properties through the local authority’s allocations scheme but had not yet applied for a mutual exchange. She said as her skills were limited and she needed assistance, she would ask her son to help her.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord’s records show internal emails were sent highlighting concerns about whether the resident would be able to look for a mutual exchange, whether she would cope with a move, and if she was moved that the issues, she was reporting might continue.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 April 2023. She said her health was deteriorating and she no longer wanted to live at the property. She said she did not want the landlord to deal with issues with the neighbours. She wanted to explore options of moving to sheltered accommodation and be referred to the local authority. She agreed to a referral to social services for ongoing support. The landlord said it would update her on 24 April 2023.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord contacted the police. The police said it had given the resident a direct person to contact and would visit her periodically to offer reassurance. The landlord confirmed it would refer her to the local authority for an assessment for ongoing support.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord made a referral to the local authority’s mental health team. It chased a response on 9 May 2023, and they confirmed they had been in contact with the resident.
On 16 May 2023 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response within 10 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 17 May 2023 and said it would respond by 31 May 2023.
In response to the resident’s complaint made on 17 March 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2023. It said:
1. In April 2023, the resident said she did not want to progress the ASB case and wanted the landlord to focus on moving her. The resident also said she did not want any support with her well-being, however, consented to a referral to the local authority’s mental health services.
2. The resident now had a new neighbourhood housing lead. It apologised she had not received a response whilst this transition was taking place.
3. It could add the resident to its downsizing list, however, due to it’s housing stock this would be a maisonette or a flat. If she wanted a house, she would need to apply for a mutual exchange.
4. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its complaint response, lack of communication and the level of service provided. It offered the resident £90 compensation.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 and 26 May 2023 to check on her welfare. The resident said the ASB was on-going, and the neighbours were removing concrete from her home which was allowing mice to enter. She said she felt this would have an impact on any potential residents should she register for a mutual exchange.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 30 May 2023. It said:
1. The resident had contacted it on numerous occasions to report further ASB and asked when she would be moved. A visit was arranged on 24 November 2022, but the resident was not at home.
2. As her neighbours were not its tenants, it was limited to what action it could take. It had referred the resident to its resident support team, and she has a direct point of contact with the police to report any further incidents of ASB.
3. It acknowledged the resident made a complaint on 17 March 2023, and it responded on 16 May 2023.
4. Due to a backlog of complaints the resident’s escalation request was only actioned on 17 May 2023. It apologised for the delay.
5. It acknowledged her frustrations with the issues she had been experiencing, and that it had not been able to offer her a move to a property of her choice. It also acknowledged she wanted 2 bedrooms with access to outside space, in her desired locations. It apologised if it caused upset by suggesting she contacted her local authority and consider mutual exchange, however, these were the housing options available to her while she waited for one of its properties to become available.
6. It acknowledged and apologised that the level of service she received fell short of acceptable standards, and its communication should have been managed more effectively and delivered more swiftly. It offered £120 compensation for the delay in its complaint responses, for inconvenience caused, and time and effort.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

The landlord contacted the resident on 20 June 2023 to discuss its visit to her which was arranged for 26 June 2023. On 22 June the resident asked the landlord to cancel the visit and said she would not fill in a medical form for rehousing. The landlord visited the resident on 26 June 2023 with the police and its resident support team to discuss her welfare, the reported ASB and repair issues.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 July 2023 and discussed closing her ASB case, it said if she felt unsafe or in any danger, she should contact the police.
The landlord contacted the resident for a welfare check on 3 August 2023. The landlord discussed an assessment by its mental health team. The resident said she met the care coordinator but did not want to work with them anymore. She said she wanted to move but did not want a mutual exchange. On 14 August 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and asked her to reconsider applying for a mutual exchange as this would help her to move quicker.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 September 2023 and said it had been trying to contact her about her continuing reports of ASB to the police. It said the police had confirmed that no criminal activities had taken place. It said it had previously visited the resident and looked over the repair records and there was no evidence to support the ASB she had reported. Considering this it was unable to progress the case without evidence. It said the resident had declined a referral to adult social services, but it felt it would be beneficial if she allowed them to carry out an assessment of her needs. The resident responded saying she no longer wanted to deal with the member of staff who contacted her.
On 21 September 2023 the landlord carried out a welfare check and told the resident that the rehousing request website had been suspended until further notice. It discussed other options such as mutual exchange however, the resident said she did not want to do this but would consider sheltered housing. The landlord sent her information about applying for sheltered housing.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 October 2023 and asked to add more areas onto her rehousing application to increase her chance of finding alternative accommodation.
On 20 November 2023 the landlord contacted the resident about applying for sheltered housing. The resident said she did not want sheltered housing. She also said she did not want to give consent for the landlord to make a referral to the local authority for further support or for it to contact her GP.
On 29 November 2023 the landlord visited the resident with a surveyor to inspect the property following the resident’s reports of neighbours causing damage.
The landlord visited the resident on 19 January 2024. The resident said due to the bedroom tax she was under financial strain and was struggling to afford to heat her home.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states its properties which are not subject to local authority nomination rights will be allocated from its rehousing list. Applicants will be shortlisted according to the date that their rehousing referral was approved.
The policy says if a resident contacts it for advice on moving it will provide an assessment of their circumstances and present them with a range of options which are appropriate to their needs. These options may include:
1. mutual exchange
2. application to the local authority’s housing register
3. mobility schemes
4. shared ownership
5. private rented sector
6. older people’s accommodation
7. direct offer (via the rehousing list).
The policy states it will work proactively with all prospective residents who need to downsize and provide the following incentives:
1. Access to the rehousing list.
2. An incentive payment of £500, or financial assistance with removal costs or to clear arrears.
3. The landlord will not charge an affordable rent.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will review all reported incidents and will consider the risk in each case. In cases of serious crime, it usually requires the reporting party to report the incident to the police before it can carry out further action. The policy states that during, receiving and logging a report of ASB it will seek to identify if there are any vulnerabilities, support needs or circumstances relating to the reporting parties and adjust its approach as necessary. It sets out that it will:
1. Keep in regular contact with the complainant/reporting party.
2. Follow safeguarding procedures if there are concerns regarding a vulnerable adult. It may arrange support from other parties who can help, including the police and local authority.
3. Provide advice and support. This could include making referrals to other agencies and, where appropriate, empower the reporting party, victims, and witnesses to take positive action.
4. Agree an action plan with the reporting party, victims, and witnesses, and keep them updated throughout the case.
The ASB policy states that eligible complainants may have a right to request a review of persistent ASB by their local authority under the community trigger process.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 1 working day. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will award discretionary compensation when it’s mistake or failure causes a customer distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting it to put things right. It will also consider the impact of any failures in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaint compensation standard operating procedure states when awarding discretionary compensation, it will consider whether the impact on the resident is low, medium, or high. For distress and inconvenience, it will award between £10 and £60, for time and effort and complaint handling between £10 and £200.

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

The resident reported that her neighbours had caused damage to her property on 27 July 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing its contractor to investigate the damage. The landlord has not provided any evidence of what the outcome of the visit was. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her reports, explain the outcome of the contractors visit, and agree an action plan. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to follow its ASB policy and procedures, and effectively communicate with the resident.
There is no evidence to show a risk assessment was completed for the resident at any stage throughout the life of the ASB case. This is contrary to its ASB policy that says it will review all reported incidents and will consider the risk in each case. Risk assessments would have provided the landlord the opportunity to assess the potential for increased harm arising and identify the priority of the case in line with its ASB policy. The resident had notified the landlord of her vulnerabilities, and she was clear about the impact the reported ASB was having on her. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess any vulnerabilities and the level of risk at the earliest opportunity and throughout the life of the case. This is evidence of poor case management in handling the residents reports of ASB.
The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems until 29 August 2023. However, the evidence provided to this Service shows the landlord considered what adjustments, support or sign posting may have been required to assist the resident to effectively navigate her reports of ASB. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out regular welfare checks over the phone and in person, it continuously asked the resident if it could make referrals to its resident support team, the local authority’s mental health team, and adult social care.
When the resident could not provide evidence of the reported ASB, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting other services such as the police and the local authority. It acted in line with its ASB policy when it told the resident it needed evidence of the reported ASB to act. However, the evidence provided to this Service does not show the landlord made it clear to the resident what different types of evidence she could have provided, and it failed to provide any expectations on what evidence would be needed. This failing caused unreasonable delays in the management of the ASB case and left the resident feeling unsupported.
The landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident to contact the police when she reported criminal activity. The evidence showed the landlord contacted the police and shared information. However, the evidence also shows that there was an over reliance on the police taking action to resolve the situation, rather than considering what duties it owed as a landlord and the actions it could take in line with its ASB policy. There was no evidence the landlord carried out its own enquiries, monitored the situation, or took any action to prevent the situation from escalating. The landlord relied on the resident or the police reporting further ASB. This left the resident with no clear action or agreed actions which caused significant detriment to the resident as she could not see any form of resolution.
The evidence shows a pattern of poor communication from the landlord in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. The resident regularly reported incidents of ASB by phone and often got no response from the landlord. This resulted in the resident regularly chasing updates. It is acknowledged that the resident repeatedly reported the same issues and did not always answer call backs. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss communication difficulties with the resident and ask what her preferred method of communication was. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for its lack of communication and said it was due to a change in staff. The landlord should have effective systems in place so residents are not impacted by staffing issues. The landlord acted inappropriately by not considering the resident’s individual circumstances and considering reasonable adjustments. This left the resident feeling ignored and that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
The evidence shows the landlord did not keep accurate and complete records in relation to the reports of ASB. The landlord’s records did not always show its responses to the resident’s reports. It did not record all the visits made, and the evidence often gave conflicting dates. The landlord’s records were vague about the issues the resident reported, what was discussed, or the communication and meetings it had with other services such as the police and local authority. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of ASB reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is essential if the landlord is to fulfil its obligations. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to them. The failures in the landlord’s knowledge and information management caused delays in its management of the ASB case.
In summary the landlord’s communication and record keeping was poor. Although it did consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered her on-going support, it failed to carry out a risk assessment at any stage of the ASB case. The landlord did work well with other organisations to try to support the resident, and the Ombudsman acknowledges that, as the neighbours were not tenants of the landlord, it was limited in the actions it could take. However, there was an overreliance on the police to act and it did not set clear expectations with the resident on what evidence she was expected to provide. The landlord did acknowledge some of these failings in its complaints process, although it did not take sufficient steps to put things right or show any learning. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

The resident asked the landlord to move her on 21 April 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by sending her medical forms to complete, by contacting the police for evidence about the ASB to see if it would support her request to move, and asking its lettings team if she could downsize. As the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and that she had been requesting to move for a long time, this Service would have expected it to confirm any action it was taking and what action the resident needed to take in writing. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that it will work proactively with residents that need to downsize and it will offer residents incentives. There is no evidence the landlord acted proactively by monitoring the situation and chasing responses from the police and its letting team. There is also no evidence it considered offering the resident any incentives to move.
The landlord’s records show that it was aware the resident was living alone. Although it is noted the resident consistently asked to be moved to a 2-bed property, the landlord acted inappropriately by failing to investigate and monitor her circumstances. The resident was on a waiting list for a 2-bed property for a significant period when she may have only been entitled to a 1 bed property if she was living alone. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to discuss this with the resident when it became aware she was living alone.
No evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord considered or discussed the financial implication of the resident residing in a 3-bed property alone. There is no evidence it referred her to seek advice on the bedroom tax or maximising her income. This was not resident focused.
In it’s stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed the resident was on the rehousing waiting list and its letting team contacted her on 31 October 2022, 1 and 4 November 2022 to discuss her housing options. The lettings team then updated the resident at regular intervals that it was still looking for accommodation for her, but it would take a long time for them to find her suitable alternative accommodation due to it not having many properties. The landlord acted appropriately by keeping the resident updated and managing her expectations.
The landlord explored all available housing options with the resident to assist her to move. This included mutual exchange, applying to go on the local authority’s housing register, supported housing and expanding the search area and exploring different types of properties. The evidence shows the resident did not show interest in these options, however, the landlord acted appropriately by continuing to offer her support to apply for all the housing options available to her.
On 2 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to measure one of her bedrooms as she felt her property should be considered as a 2-bed property. The landlord acted appropriately by asking a surveyor to attend the property. However, there is no evidence that a surveyor or the landlord attended to measure the room. Although, the landlord may feel that the property was correctly assessed as a 3-bed property, it should have communicated this to the resident clearly stating its reasons. The lack of communication caused the resident to chase a response and was left not knowing an outcome to her request.
In summary the landlord communicated well with the resident about her request for rehousing and effectively managed her expectations. It provided the resident with advice on all the housing options available to her, and continuously offered her support with these options. However, the landlord failed to consider whether the property could be classed as a 2 bed. It also failed to consider the financial implication of the resident under occupying the property and did not offer any support or signpost her to get advice on how to manage living in the property whilst she was waiting to be moved. The landlord failed to acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses, it did not offer any redress or show any learning.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The Ombudsman submitted a complaint on the resident’s behalf on 12 August 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident the next day to discuss her complaint. It acknowledged the complaint within its 5 working day timescale.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 October 2022, this was 26 working days later. This was outside its target timescale of 10 working days. In its response the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay or the fact that the Ombudsman and the resident had chased updates about the complaint. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident and talking through its stage 1 response with her. This showed the landlord listened and took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities and preferred communication methods.
The Housing Ombudsman Code (the Code) states a landlord should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint that she had not had a response from it about her rehousing application since submitting her medical forms. It failed to say what action had been taken and what steps it was taking to put things right. The landlord acted inappropriately by not addressing all the resident’s complaint issues.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 November 2022. No evidence was submitted to this Service that the landlord acknowledged this within its 5 working day timescale or told the resident when she should expect a response. This led to the resident chasing updates and making 2 further complaints about the same issues in December 2022 and March 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in December 2022 but opened a new complaint in March 2023. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident on when she should expect a response. As the complaint was about the same ASB issues the landlord was investigating at stage 2, this Service would have expected the landlord to include any further information or evidence the resident gave within its stage 2 review rather than open a new complaint. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to act in line with its own complaints policy and procedures, and by failing to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2023. This was 39 working days after the resident raised her complaint in March 2023, which was outside the landlord’s 10 working day timescale. The landlord did act appropriately by acknowledging and apologising for the delay, lack of communication and the level of service provided, and offered the resident £90 compensation.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 30 May 2023, this was 131 working days after the resident escalated her initial complaint. This was a significant delay which was outside its 20-working day target response time. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays within its stage 1 and 2 responses and offered £110 compensation. However, it did not show that it had learnt from this complaint and failed to say what action it was going to take to ensure it would not make the same mistakes again.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there were delays in the landlord providing its complaint responses, there was poor communication and it failed to address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord failed to show it tried to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. The landlord did acknowledge, apologise, and offered compensation for the delays, lack of communication, inconvenience, time, and trouble. However, it did not show it had learnt from its mistakes and what steps it was going to take to ensure these failings did not happen again.
Based on the above the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered her on-going support, however, it failed to carry out a risk assessment. The landlord worked with other organisations to try to support the resident, however, there was an overreliance on the police to act and it did not set clear expectations with the resident on what evidence she was expected to provide. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. Although the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for some of these failings in the complaints process, it did not take sufficient steps to put things right or show any learning. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord communicated well with the resident about her request for rehousing and effectively managed her expectations. It provided the resident with advice on all the housing options available to her, and continuously offered her support with these options. However, the landlord failed to consider whether the property could be classed as a 2 bed, and failed to offer the resident support or signpost her to get financial and benefit advice whilst she was waiting to be moved. The landlord failed to acknowledge these failings, it did not offer any redress, or show any learning.
There were significant delays in the landlord providing its complaint responses, there was poor communication and it failed to address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord failed to show it tried to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. The landlord did acknowledge, apologise, and offered compensation for the delays, lack of communication, inconvenience, time, and trouble. However, it did not show it had learnt from its mistakes and what steps it was going to take to ensure these failings did not happen again.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. If the landlord has not already done so it should pay the resident the £210 compensation it offered her in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
3. In addition to this the landlord must pay the resident a total of £550, which is made up of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s response to her request to be rehoused.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears.
4. To arrange a meeting with the resident to understand:
  1. What her needs and requirements are for rehousing, for example how many bedrooms she needs, the areas she wants to be in, any specific requirements or adaptations she needs.
  2. Whether she meets the requirements for supported housing.
  3. To offer her support and assistance to apply for a mutual exchange and to make an application to the local authority to bid for alternative accommodation.
  4. To consider any support, sign posting, or referrals it can make to help her seek financial and benefit advice whilst she is waiting to be rehoused.

Systemic investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation in July 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. This included a finding that the landlord was not following its anti-social behaviour policy, leaving vulnerable residents exposed and it had failed to assess harm. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling and approach to residents with vulnerabilities and to recording resident vulnerabilities. Many of the failings identified by this complaint mirror the issues noted by this investigation. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, this Service does not make any wider order.