London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202125237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125237

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s request for a priority transfer.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The resident has lived at the property since February 2012. The property is a 2 bedroom flat.
The landlord said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident informed the landlord in October 2021 that she suffers with her mental health. During the course of the investigation into her complaint, she shared details of her conditions and her treatment with the landlord. During the same period, 4 separate health professionals provided supporting letters confirming her health conditions and vulnerabilities.
The person who is the subject of the resident’s ASB complaints is a neighbour of the resident. The neighbour is not a tenant of the landlord. For the purpose of clarity, the neighbour will be referred to as the/her neighbour in this report.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will:
1. Encourage residents to resolve minor issues themselves.
2. Complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix (RAM) on relevant priority cases to assess the risk and harm caused to victims and to guide staff on actions to take.
3. Provide advice and support, and work with partner agencies.
4. Keep in regular contact and provide regular updates to the complainant.
5. Use powers and remedies available and appropriate to address ASB, including those that can be used in respect of non-residents who are causing ASB. It will consider warning letters, mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts, and proportionate legal actions.
6. It will close an ASB case either when the case is resolved, there is insufficient evidence to progress the case, or no further action is possible. It will discuss this with the resident prior to closing the case.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states it will offer practical advice about housing options to residents who wish to move. It will only directly rehouse residents who have a high priority need for rehousing. It will consider making a direct offer to residents who are at risk if they remain in their home due to ASB, or who have a significant medical need. When residents are assessed as having a high priority need, the landlord will make a direct offer by matching the resident to a property through its rehousing list.
The landlord’s website says its rehousing service is currently paused for new referrals. It advises residents to consider alternative rehousing options, such as mutual exchange and the local authority’s housing register. The website asks residents to contact the landlord if they are concerned about their safety while remaining in their home. The landlord informed this Service that its rehousing service has been paused since 3 May 2021, due to the high demand for direct offers in comparison to the stock available.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint policy. It states it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. It will acknowledge a stage 2 escalation request within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days. At both stages, should it require up to an additional 10 working days to respond, it will contact the resident and explain its reasons.
The landlord’s compensation policy describes the process to assess and determine compensation. It states that the amount it will award depends on the severity of the failing and the impact on the resident. It will award compensation between £10 and £200 for distress, inconvenience, time and effort, and complaint handling. The policy provides guidance on how much the award should be and whether it should be calculated as a single or monthly payment.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord and the local authority’s noise nuisance team on 13 October 2021, to report noise nuisance from her neighbour. She reported loud music, parties, slamming doors, and banging. She said she understood there was little the landlord could do about it as her neighbour was not one of its residents. She explained she suffered from anxiety because of the noise nuisance. The landlord advised her to speak to her neighbour and try to resolve the issue amicably. It explained her neighbour may not be aware of the impact of their conduct. It also signposted the resident to its website for further advice on how to handle the situation.
On 4 November 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she felt unsafe in her home as a result of a physical assault from her neighbour. The following day, the landlord discussed the issue with her. It noted:
1. The resident said she had experienced noise nuisance from her neighbour for 9 years.
2. The resident reported an incident which occurred on 31 October 2021. She said her neighbour was playing loud music, so she went to knock the neighbour’s door to discuss it. She described that they exchanged words and her neighbour manhandled her off the property. She reported the incident to the police who informed her that her neighbour was entitled to use reasonable force to remove her from their land.
3. The resident said she suffered with her mental health.
4. The landlord advised her to contact victim support and provided her with their contact details.
5. It advised the resident to register on the local authority’s housing list, which the resident confirmed she already had. She also confirmed she had registered for a mutual exchange.
6. The landlord advised her to report the ongoing noise nuisance to the local authority’s noise nuisance team. It also advised her to record incidents on diary sheets and the noise app. It explained that it would work with the noise nuisance team and the police.
7. It said it was limited on what it could do to manage ASB from non-residents. It explained it required evidence from the police to assess whether she and her family were at risk from her neighbour. If so, it would consider whether to facilitate a move for their safety. It asked the resident to provide the police crime reference number for the assault.
8. The landlord completed a RAM with the resident. It noted the vulnerability risk assessment scored 9, which the landlord said was a low score.
The resident and landlord discussed the issue of ASB on one occasion in December 2021. The resident also spoke to her local councillor about the ASB and her wish to move. The councillor contacted the landlord asking for an update on the actions it had taken to help the resident.
The landlord responded to the councillor on 11 January 2022. It shared the information it had provided to the resident concerning the ASB and options for a housing transfer. It also explained that it had been waiting for information from the resident about the ASB and her medical conditions.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and reminded her that it required the crime reference number. It reiterated the reasons for requesting the information. It also advised the resident to report any further nuisance to the noise nuisance team. The landlord additionally provided the resident with a medical form to assess her eligibility for a move due to medical conditions.
The resident provided the landlord with the crime reference number on the same day. She said she had previously completed a medical form and was informed in October 2021, that her medical needs did not meet the threshold for a direct offer. However, she agreed to complete a new form and said she would include a supporting letter from her health visitor. She also confirmed she had remained in contact with the noise nuisance team. She asked the landlord to refer her to the local authority’s social welfare panel. She said the local authority could then assess her for a higher band, which would make it easier for her to be considered for alternative accommodation.
The resident forwarded her completed medical form to the landlord on 26 January 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 February 2022, to discuss the case. It reminded her that it was waiting for her to provide evidence to support the allegation of noise nuisance. The landlord also provided ASB diary sheets and the noise nuisance app. It asked the resident to record the noise for 10 days so it could assess her case. It advised it would use this evidence to assess whether a referral for a direct move was required. The resident shared that there had been further incidents with children running up and down the stairs, dog barking, doors slamming, and the neighbour laughing at her.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 February 2022, it said that it had reviewed the information provided by the resident and the police. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence that she was at risk from her neighbour. It explained that her RAM score was low and, based on the evidence, it was unable to facilitate a move. The landlord reiterated its previous advice regarding reporting noise nuisance, its processes, and support services she could access. The landlord noted that the resident said she was suicidal, and because of her comments, it had contacted the emergency services. It noted that it had explained to the resident it had a duty to report welfare concerns.
On 25 February 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it was closing the ASB case. It summarised the actions taken as part of its investigation:
1. It said ASB diary sheets and the noise app were sent to the resident.
2. It had discussed the issues with the resident and completed a RAM, which scored a low rating. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support that there was a high risk.
3. It had provided the resident with advice on mutual exchanges and signposted her to support services.
4. It had advised the resident to continue reporting further incidents to itself and the police.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 March 2022. The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She said:
1. She had suffered from noise nuisance from a neighbour, who was not a resident of the landlord and the neighbour had assaulted her.
2. She wanted to move and had been on the transfer list, but it had been closed.
3. She had completed a new medical assessment but had not received an outcome to her application.
4. The landlord had informed her that she was not considered high risk for a direct move or for referral to the council authority social welfare panel.
5. The landlord had informed her it was closing her case, which had caused her further distress;
6. A staff member of the landlord had contacted the police and ambulance for the resident and she no longer wished to be contacted by that person.
7. She suffered with her mental health and was receiving treatment for her condition.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 8 March 2022.
On 25 April 2022 and 19 May 2022, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue the stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued it stage 1 response on 25 May 2022. Its response was a follows:
1. It had reviewed its records and discussed the case with the relevant staff. It said its records showed it had communicated with the resident throughout the case.
2. It explained that as the neighbour was not a resident of the landlord, it could not take actions against them, or resolve the issues through its usual processes.
3. It had advised the resident to report the noise nuisance to the local authority’s noise team, who had the powers to address the issue.
4. The resident had informed the landlord that her neighbour had pushed her when removing her front their garden. She had reported the incident to the police who explained that her neighbour was entitled to use reasonable force to remove her from their land. The landlord also noted that the resident took no further action.
5. It said that, following the incident, it had advised the resident on services she could access for support. The landlord said this was reasonable advice from its staff.
6. It explained its safeguarding responsibilities and its process to report safeguarding concerns. It noted that the resident informed its staff that she “was suicidal”. The landlord added she had said this several times and it had informed her that it had contacted the emergency services.
7. In response to her request to have no further contact with one staff member, the landlord shared that a restructure of its team was underway and a new staff member would be allocated to her area.
8. It advised that the medical information the resident provided in January 2022 for a direct move had not been forwarded to the medical officer. It said this was because the information she had provided had not added anything to what she had previously submitted. It apologised for not advising her of this at the time.
9. It acknowledged that the resident had suggested being referred to the local authority welfare panel to be assessed for a higher banding. The landlord advised it was not aware that housing associations could use the panel. It said it was possible that residents could self-refer to the panel.
10. It concluded that the actions it took in dealing with the matters raised had been in line with its policies and procedures.
11. It acknowledged the delays in responding to her complaint and offered £50 in compensation. It explained it was equivalent to £25 per month of delay.
The resident responded to the stage 1 response on 14 June 2022. She said:
1. She had not said that she was suicidal.
2. She believed the landlord was responsible to ensure her household did not feel threatened by neighbours and for her to enjoy her home.
3. She described how she had applied for a property and had been unsuccessful.
4. She asked the landlord to explain what it was doing to support her household.
5. She requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
On 28 September 2022, the landlord’s records showed there was a backlog in processing medical assessment relating to direct offers. The landlord also noted in its records that it had not phoned the resident.
On 7 October 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she remained dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. She said the landlord had ignored her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She reported further incidents of ASB of the same nature as she had previously reported. She shared that the noise nuisance team had attended on 3 occasions but had not witnessed the music to a level they could act on.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It apologised for not escalating her complaint earlier and said it would respond within 20 days.
The landlord’s records showed the noise nuisance team wrote to the neighbour about the noise nuisance in October 2022. Following further ASB reports from the resident, the landlord opened a new ASB case on 31 October 2022.
On 4 November 2022, the landlord shared its decision about the resident’s application for a direct offer under the grounds of medical reasons. It apologised to the resident for the delay in responding to her request. It explained that, based on the recommendations of its independent medical advisor and after considering her circumstances, it had not approved her for a direct offer. It advised her on the criteria and process to appeal the decision and provided information on a mutual exchange.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 28 November 2022, discussed the noise nuisance, and shared its guide on being a good neighbour. It also informed the resident of its actions.
The resident reported further incidents of ASB with her neighbour in December 2022. She also noted she had not received the stage 2 response to her complaint.
On 7 February 2023, this Service contacted the landlord and requested that it issued the resident with the stage 2 response to her complaint.
The landlord contacted the noise nuisance team on 10 February 2023. It asked for an update on their investigation and how both agencies could work in partnership to support the resident. It shared with the noise team that the resident had gathered evidence of the noise nuisance on the noise app.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 February 2023. It was as follows:
1. The resident’s complaint was about its handling of her ASB reports and her request to be prioritised for a housing transfer.
2. It advised it had reviewed its systems, spoken to staff, and reviewed the stage 1 investigation of the complaint.
3. It reiterated its findings at stage 1 and of the actions it took in response to her ASB reports about her neighbour.
4. The landlord discussed the noise nuisance with the resident on 10 February 2023. The resident advised that she had videos and noise app recordings of the nuisance. She said she had reported the matter to the noise nuisance team.
5. The landlord advised it had contacted the council noise team and was waiting for a response. It asked for an update on the action the noise nuisance team was taking and what additional support it could provide to the resident. It said it would be in contact with the resident once the noise nuisance team got in touch.
6. It apologised for the delay responding to her complaint. It offered £140 in compensation. It said it was made up of £100 for the delay in responding to her complaint and £40 to reflect the resident’s time and effort in seeking a response to her complaint.
On 14 February 2023, the noise team provided an update about its investigation to the landlord. It confirmed that the resident had called the team several times to report noise nuisance. It said it had attended the property a few times and had not witnessed any statutory nuisance.
Between March 2023 and June 2023, the resident continued to report issues of ASB from her neighbour. The nature of the ASB were of the same nature as she had previously reported. The landlord continued to communicate with the resident about the ASB and her options for alternative accommodation.
On 24 April 2023, the landlord agreed to refer the resident to the local authority’s social welfare panel for her banding to be reviewed. The resident asked the landlord to delay this until she could include supporting letters, which she sent on 2 May 2023. On 18 May 2023, the landlord contacted the council to enquire about the referral process for the social welfare panel.
The landlord referred the resident to the local authority’s social welfare panel on 12 June 2023. The application included supporting letters from 4 separate health providers, all of whom said the resident suffered with her mental health.
On 28 June 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the local authority’s social welfare panel had advised that she did not meet the criteria for a higher band. The resident said she had asked for a review of their decision.

Assessment and findings

ASB

The Ombudsman understands that the resident has experienced noise nuisance from her neighbour for some time. This has been distressing for the resident and her family. The resident has reported that the ongoing ASB impacted on her mental health and caused the family some distress. It may assist to explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide whether ASB occurred, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The landlord operates an ASB policy, which describes what it will do on receipt of an ASB report, how it will investigate, what actions it may take, its partnership work, and how it will close ASB cases.
Between October 2021 and November 2021, the landlord and the resident discussed the noise nuisance she was experiencing from her neighbour. The landlord said the actions it could take to manage the ASB was limited because the neighbour was not its tenant. The resident said she understood. It was good practice from the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations early on, while continuing to explore solutions with the resident.
When the resident initially reported noise nuisance in October 2021, the landlord advised her to consider speaking to her neighbour to resolve the issue amicably. It also signposted her to information on how to handle such situations. This was in line with its policy to encourage residents to resolve issues between themselves whenever possible. This approach is also considered good practice when dealing with noise nuisance, as often people are unaware how noise travels and how their conduct impacts on others. In cases when this approach resolves the issue, it can help build relationships between neighbours and resilient communities. At that stage, it was right for the landlord to advise the resident to consider this as a way of resolving the issue.
Following this, the resident reported that her neighbour had assaulted her and she felt unsafe in her home. The landlord promptly discussed what happened with the resident, which was the right thing to do. Then, it completed a RAM with the resident. The purpose of a RAM is to identify vulnerabilities, assess the impact of the ASB, and establish the level of risk to the resident. In this case, considering the nature of the resident’s report, it was appropriate for the landlord to complete the risk assessment. This was also in line with its policy and completed within a reasonable time frame.
The outcome of such an assessment will guide staff on actions to take to address the matter, support the resident, and help to keep the resident safe. In this case, the landlord noted and informed the resident that the assessment scored as a low risk. Following the outcome of the RAM, the landlord signposted the resident to support agencies. It also appropriately advised her to report the nuisance to the statutory agencies, who had powers to take actions against her neighbour. In addition, it explained how to gather evidence and said it would work in partnership with other agencies. In the circumstances of the case, this was reasonable from the landlord.
Between October 2021 and February 2022, the landlord remained in contact with the resident and asked her to provide evidence of the noise nuisance. It provided her with tools and advice to gather evidence such as ASB diaries and the noise app. It made clear to the resident that the purpose of its investigation was to establish whether she was at risk in her home and whether she was eligible for a direct offer to move. This was in keeping with its lettings policy which noted that a direct offer may be offered it there was a “risk by remaining in the home due to Anti-social Behaviour”.
In compliance with its ASB policy, the landlord reviewed the information provided by all parties and informed the resident of its findings. As part of its review, the landlord considered the police report regarding the altercation with the neighbour. The police had concluded that what happened did not amount to an assault. It is accepted that the landlord does not have the expertise to assess whether an assault has taken place or not. Therefore, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the police report to assess the risk to the resident.
In February 2022, it informed the resident that it was closing the ASB case because the evidence did not show the family was at risk due to the ASB experienced. The landlord clearly communicated to the resident that because of this, it was unable to offer her a direct move under the grounds of safety. It also appropriately directed the resident to the rehousing options available to her. In light of this, the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
The evidence seen shows that the resident made no further reports of ASB to the landlord until October 2022. At that point, the resident reported further nuisance from her neighbour, of the same nature as previously reported. From that date, it seems that the landlord increased its activities to manage the ASB. For example, in November 2022, it wrote to the neighbour in an attempt to resolve the ASB. It also liaised with the noise and nuisance team and asked what it could do to further support the resident. It is unclear what prompted those actions from the landlord. Nevertheless, this was good practice from the landlord. In this case, it shows that the landlord was keen to try and help the resident to address the matter.
The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good record keeping assists landlords to deliver efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. While, in this case, the issues began prior to the spotlight report’s publication, the report consolidated some of the good practice that would be expected from landlords at any time.
The evidence in this case raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. For instance, the landlord informed this Service that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the evidence seen shows that the resident and health professionals had informed the landlord of her health conditions and vulnerabilities. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to update its records to reflect the information provided. However, in this case, the evidence seen shows that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its communications with her and the actions it took, such as signposting her to support. Therefore, while it is acknowledged that the landlord’s records should have reflected the information it had received, this did not have an impact on its service delivery to the resident.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the impact the ASB had on the resident’s wellbeing and the distress she has experienced. It is also recognised that the neighbour is not a resident of the landlord and this limits the actions available to the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord demonstrated it was mindful of what it could do to help the resident by advising her ways to gather evidence and by considering a move. It acted in accordance with its obligations, including its policies and procedures when responding to ASB reports about a resident who was not their tenant. Therefore, in all circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman determines that the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports have been reasonable and proportionate. There was no maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Transfer

The landlord’s lettings policy states it will offer practical advice to residents who wish to move. Between October 2021 and November 2021, the resident indicated to the landlord that she wished to move. The landlord appropriately advised the resident to register on the local authority’s housing register and for a mutual exchange.
Between October 2021 and June 2023, the landlord and the resident explored several rehousing options. The landlord assessed whether it could offer a direct move due to risks presented by the ASB or a direct offer due to medical conditions. The resident also asked the landlord to refer her to the local authority’s social welfare panel to be assessed for a higher band, to improve her chances when bidding for properties with the local authority. This report will first assess the landlord’s handling of her applications for direct offers, then it will consider the landlord’s response to her request for a referral the local authority’s social welfare panel.
The landlord’s rehousing service was paused in May 2021, and it only considered direct offers (also referred to as internal transfers) under exceptional circumstances. The resident raised concerns in November 2021, that she was unsafe in her home after she had been assaulted by her neighbour. The landlord correctly explained to the resident that if the police confirmed she was unsafe it may be able to facilitate a move. It asked the resident to share the police crime reference number so that it could liaise with the police and establish whether it was unsafe for her to remain at her property. As mentioned earlier in this report, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the police report to assess the risks. The landlord also acted in line with its policy when it asked for evidence to support a direct move. This ensured it carried out a full and fair assessment of the resident’s eligibility for a direct offer.
There were some delays in the resident providing the police crime reference number to the landlord. She provided the information to the landlord on 11 January 2022. The landlord also requested further evidence of ASB at that time and provided suitable tools for the resident to gather the evidence.
In February 2022, the landlord carried out a reasonable review of the evidence and an assessment of whether the threshold for a direct offer, due to risk from ASB, had been met. It reviewed the police report and the RAM it had completed with the resident. It is unclear whether the resident had provided additional evidence of the nuisance to the landlord. The landlord then discussed the outcome of its assessment with the resident and followed up with a letter. It was clear in its communication with the resident that the evidence did not support that there was a high risk and therefore her application for rehousing on the grounds of being unsafe in her home due to ASB was declined. While this was distressing for the resident, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy.
During the same period, the landlord also considered whether it could offer the resident a direct offer due to medical conditions. It provided the resident with a medical form on 11 January 2022, which the resident returned on 26 January 2022. In its stage 1 response in May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the medical information had not been forwarded to the independent medical examiner. It said this was because the information did not add to what she had previously provided. It is unclear whether this meant her application for a direct offer was declined or it would be assessed based information she had provided in the past. It would have been helpful for the landlord’s communication to have been clearer.
Additionally, the landlord’s communication in May 2022 was the first update the resident had on her application for a direct offer due to medical conditions. It is acknowledged that the landlord apologised for the delay; however, it did not explain why it took 4 months to share this with the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide regular updates to the resident and explain the reason for the delays in processing her application.
The landlord then contacted the resident on 4 November 2022, to share the outcome of its assessment of her application for a direct offer for medical reasons. It is understood that the landlord had a backlog of applications to process. However, the landlord did not show that it had communicated this to the resident, nor did it provide her with updates or a timeframe of when it would process her application. The landlord’s records showed that in September 2022, it had been aware that it had not contacted the resident; however, this did not prompt any action. This was unreasonable. Good communication is essential to manage expectations and foster good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident, which caused her distress and time and effort to seek an outcome.
As mentioned above, the resident requested for the landlord to refer her to the local authority’s social welfare panel to be assessed for a higher band. She made this request in January 2022. She also complained to the landlord in March 2022 that it had not acted on her request. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response in May 2022, that it had not been aware it could refer to the panel. However, it is not evident why it did not mention this the resident in its communication in January 2022, or why it did not seek to understand the process to refer to the panel. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to explore this sooner and communicate its findings to the resident. Its failure to do so unreasonably delayed the resident’s ability to make an application herself, or otherwise fully understand her options.
Furthermore, it was another 11 months before the landlord agreed to make the referral to the local authority’s social welfare panel and another month before it contacted the local authority to enquire about the process. It made the referral in June 2023. This was nearly 2 and half years after the resident first asked about it. This was an unreasonable delay from the landlord. The evidence seen also shows that it failed to provide the resident with updates or act promptly when the resident challenged its lack of action on the matter.
In summary, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord appropriately processed the resident’s application for a direct offer due to risk. The Ombudsman also recognises that the threshold for direct offers is very high and that there is a high demand for the landlord’s rehousing service. This had created a challenge for the landlord to process applications within a reasonable time frame. However, where delays occur, landlords are expected to communicate effectively and provide timely updates to residents.
In this case, the landlord failed to act promptly to requests, it failed to communicate effectively, and failed to provide updates to the resident. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a priority transfer or direct offer. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that if those failings had not occurred, the outcome for the resident would have been different. The failings did, however, caused the resident some inconvenience time and effort and delay, whilst seeking an outcome.
In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, published on this Service’s website, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay £350 in compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused. This reflects the impact of the landlord’s poor communication and its delays responding to the resident’s requests. It also reflects that the resident spent time and effort seeking an outcome to her applications and requests.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 within 20 days. In this case, the resident made a stage 1 complaint in March 2022, which she escalated to stage 2 in June 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 47 working days outside its published time frame, and its stage 2 response 151 days outside its published time frame. No evidence was seen to show that it had provided an explanation to the resident for the delay or discussed an extension to respond.
In addition, at both stages of the complaint, the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance. She asked the Ombudsman to intervene and request that the landlord issue the stage 1 and stage 2 responses to her complaint. A resident should not have to contact the Ombudsman for landlords to respond to their complaints. In this case, the resident had to do this at both stages, which was unreasonable. This caused the resident to spend time and effort to get her complaint answered and delayed her getting a final response. It also is unclear whether, without the Ombudsman’s intervention, the resident would have received a response to her complaint at all, or how long she would have had to wait for it.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge a request to escalate a complaint to stage 2 within 2 working days. In June 2022, the resident made a request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The evidence seen shows that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request in October 2022, after the resident chased the stage 2 response. This was 80 days outside of its published time frame.
The resident also stated that she had no communications from the landlord. She said it did not negotiate, at any stage, a new time frame to respond to her complaints. There is no evidence the landlord provided her with explanations for the delays responding to her. Its policy says the landlord would explain to the resident its reasons if it required an additional 10 days to respond. In this case, the landlord failed to discuss the delays and agree new dates to respond.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets the requirements for landlords to respond to complaints effectively. The Code says that landlords should take the opportunity to learn from complaints to improve their service. In this case, the landlord failed to evidence it had learned from its failings at stage 1, as it repeated the same failings at stage 2.
It is understood that at times, things go wrong and service delivery can fall short of what is expected. However, when this happens, it is essential for landlords to show that they can response to complaints effectively and put things right. It is equally important that landlords show they have learned from previous mistakes and put measures in place to prevent repeating the same failings again. This ensures residents have confidence in the landlord’s ability to learn and improve to deliver a good service.
However, in this case, the evidence seen shows that, at every stage of the internal complaint process, the landlord has failed to handle the resident’s complaint in keeping with its policy and the Code. It failed to explain the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint or to evidence it had learned from its mistakes. Those failings caused inconvenience and time and effort to the resident. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord.
The Code says any remedy offered by landlords as part of dispute resolution must reflect the extent of the service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. It is acknowledged that the landlord offered £190 compensation to the resident to reflect its failings in responding to the complaints and the impact on the resident. It is acknowledged the offers were in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that in this case, this was too low and did not reflect the failings and their impact on the resident.
In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, published on this Service’s website, the Ombudsman has determined that compensation of £250 is appropriate in this case. This reflects the delays in responding at both stages, delays in escalating the resident’s complaint, and failings to communicate effectively with the resident. It also reflects that the resident spent considerable time and effort seeking a response to her complaints with the landlords and had to ask the Ombudsman to intervene.
The Ombudsman notes that in a separate case (reference 202223386) determined on 21 December 2023, a wider order has already been issued in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme in relation to how the landlord has managed its backlog of complaints. This order includes a review of its communication and future practices in relation to complaints handling. As such, no further orders have been made in this case, which would duplicate those already made as part of the wider order.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect its:
1. response to the resident’s request for a priority transfer:
2. complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord demonstrated it had been reasonable and proportionate in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. It also showed its commitment to do what it could to help the resident manage the ASB. It acted in accordance with its obligations, including its policies and procedures when responding to ASB from a resident that was not its tenant. .
The landlord failed to act promptly to the resident’s requests to be considered for a move. It failed to process her application for a direct offer due to medical conditions in a timely manner. It also took approximately 16 months to refer the resident to the council social welfare panel. It consistently failed to communicate effectively and failed to provide updates to the resident.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within its published time frame. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout its internal complaint process. It had required for the Ombudsman to intervene twice for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £600, comprising:
1. £350 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her request for a transfer;
2. £250 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £190. The compensation (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid directly to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident and apologised for the failings identified in this report.
2. Share the findings of this report with the relevant teams to identify both the good practice and the failings with the aim of facilitating learning. The landlord is to inform the Ombudsman when this is completed or when it is booked for.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord updates the resident’s vulnerabilities on its records.
The resident has informed this Service of her concerns regarding a family member’s health and the impact the ASB has on them. This concern may not have been previously considered. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommends for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss this in more detail within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.