London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202313577)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313577

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

17 September 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. request to be rehoused, and associated staff conduct;
2. concerns regarding rent arrears;
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy that began on 25 March 2013. The property was a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
In 2011 the resident was the victim of a violent sexual assault by a stranger, who was convicted and sentenced to prison. The resident described how the attack had left her needing facial reconstruction surgery, and treatment and support for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The landlord’s vulnerability records noted the resident’s PTSD, and other mental and physical health issues.
In June 2021 the resident told the landlord that the perpetrator of her attack had recently been released from prison, and that she had received threatening letters at her property from an unknown source. The resident said that the content of the letters gave her reason to suspect that they may be linked to the perpetrator. She said that she had reported the matter to the Police, and had fled her property with just a bag.
The resident later explained that Victim Support had arranged a safehouse for her 40 miles away, and that the council had agreed to cover her rent and council tax for 12 months to give her breathing space. She explained that she did not want to move back to her property until her 12 month agreement expired, but that she did not want to lose her tenancy with the landlord. The landlord opened a case for the resident, and its associated records referred to the resident receiving dual benefits.
In February 2022 the landlord’s record said that the resident was in receipt of housing benefit, and had agreed that her case could be closed. It stated that the resident had said that she would be “returning to her property in July 2022 when she felt safer”. In June 2022 the resident made a right to acquire (RTA) application to the landlord to purchase her property.

Allocations and lettings policy

The landlord’s policy explained the criteria that must be met for a resident to be considered for rehousing. The criteria included where a resident “is at immediate risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang related violence, high level antisocial behaviour (ASB) or hate crime where there are no other solutions to reduce the risk”.
The policy stated that a rehousing applicant’s case would be reviewed by a manager from the relevant service area to ensure that it meets the rehousing criteria, ahead of being considered by its ‘priority needs panel’.

Vulnerable residents policy

The landlord’s definition of a vulnerable resident included someone with any condition or circumstance that placed them at risk in their home, or of being unable to comply with the conditions of their tenancy.
The principles of the policy were “intended to support colleague’s judgement so they feel empowered to ‘do the right thing’ when dealing with a vulnerable customer”.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage complaint process, and would send its written responses within 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively. It said that if it needed longer at either stage, it would explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.

Summary of events

On 14 July 2022 the landlord’s income team wrote to the resident with reference to its previous letter, and its unsuccessful attempts to call her regarding her arrears. It noted that the resident’s arrears had accrued since her housing benefit payment had stopped, and enclosed a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP). The landlord’s income team called the resident the same day, and noted the following key points:
1. The resident said that she had fled her property due to threats. She said that she did not want to explain it further, but that the landlord should already have all the details on its system.
2. The resident stated that she was working, no longer receiving benefits, and would be returning to her property. She confirmed rent payment dates, her ability to pay, and her understanding that nothing further would happen with the NOSP as long as she did. She said that she was looking into buying her property.
The landlord’s income team had further contact with the resident during the second half of July 2023. On 1 August 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm which day she would be making the weekly rent payment that she had proposed to reduce her arrears. The landlord’s record noted that it had left a voicemail for the resident, and that a payment plan still needed to be agreed.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord’s record said that the resident had said that “they were previously victim of domestic abuse”. The landlord raised a task to call the resident back to discuss her housing options. The landlord called the resident back the same day, and noted that the resident had said that she “was a victim of sexual assault”, and had been served a NOSP. The landlord opened an ASB case for the resident.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord’s record detailed its call to the resident. The key points were as follows:
1. It stated that the resident had suffered “domestic abuse and rape by a stranger 2011”. It summarised the events that had led to the resident fleeing her property.
2. It said that she was unable to afford her private rental since the council had stopped payments, and was too afraid to move back into her property. It said that she wanted to be transferred to another property.
3. It said that it had sent the resident mutual exchange information, completed an assessment, and allocated the case to an ASB case worker (CW).
During the second half of October 2022, the landlord’s CW and income team separately made unsuccessful attempts to call the resident, and left voicemails. The landlord wrote to the resident with regards to her arrears and asked her to contact it, which she did towards the end of the month. The resident said that she could not currently afford the weekly rent payment, but would pay when she could. She said that she intended to move back into her property.
On 28 October 2022 the landlord’s income team wrote to the resident, and referred to what she had explained in her call on 14 October 2022. It acknowledged how difficult things were for her, and its wish to offer support. It offered to make a referral to its tenancy sustainment team that had assisted the resident the previous year. The landlord’s record of its call to the resident 4 days later stated that she had confirmed she would like it to make the referral, but that she did not want to return to her property, and wanted a move.
In early November 2022 the landlord’s internal emails discussed the resident’s case. The landlord’s tenancy sustainment team stated that it was unable to assist the resident as she was not intending to return to her property, and suggested its housing team should discuss options with her. The landlord conveyed this to the resident on 10 November 2022.
On 10 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord why it thought that she was not intending to return to her property, and emphasised that she was. She said that “I had to leave my home for a while domestic violence”. On 11 November 2022 the landlord’s record stated that it had emailed the resident to advise that her RTA application had been denied.
On 14 November 2022 the landlord’s income team apologised to the resident for the misunderstanding regarding whether she would return to her property. It explained what its previous notes had said about her not returning to her property, and wanting to be rehoused. It said that it had made a further referral to its tenancy sustainment team.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord’s income team told the resident why its tenancy sustainment team could still not accept her referral, and that its housing team would assist her instead. It explained that none of the applications that the tenancy sustainment team would normally make on her behalf would be accepted by the council unless she was residing at her property. It asked when she expected to return to it.
On 29 November 2022 the landlord’s CW emailed the resident to confirm what they had just discussed following her report “on 5 October 2023 regarding domestic abuse”. The CW’s key points were as follows:
1. She apologised for the number of questions that she had needed to ask the resident, and explained the information was necessary in order that she could support her. She acknowledged that the resident had found it distressing, and stated that “I honestly do not mean to upset you”.
2. She listed the details and evidence that she hoped that the resident would provide, including copies of the threatening letters she had received, and that without which she would have to close her ASB case. She encouraged the resident to engage with her.
On 29 November 2022 the landlord’s internal emails discussed the resident’s situation. The CW asked the landlord’s income team if it was taking arrears actions. The income team advised that it had had held back from any further actions since it had issued its NOSP while the resident sought support. The income team stated that the resident had previously been very clear in an email that she did wish to move back into her property. The emails concluded that the landlord would need to recover possession of the property if the resident did not intend to move back in, but that further checks were needed, and the resident given time to engage.
On 30 November 2022 the resident told the landlord’s CW that there were errors in her email from the previous day. The resident stated that she had only said that she did not want to return to her property out of anger, because the CW was “talking to me like I was a criminal, and not the victim”. The resident expressed her doubt that the CW was trained for sensitive situations. She highlighted her mental health issues, and said she would provide the threatening letters and evidence that had been requested when she felt stronger.
On 1 December 2022 the landlord’s CW told the resident that she could not assist her without evidence of more recent risks or concerns. The CW told the resident that it “was concerning” that she had said that she had left her property over a year earlier, but that she had submitted an RTA application. The CW suggested that the resident ask someone to act as her advocate, “otherwise I will be taking actions to take possession back of our property as you are not engaging with us with your ASB case”.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord’s income team wrote to the resident with regards to her approximately £3800 of arrears. Its internal records noted that it needed to confirm when she was looking to move back to her property, and that it could not allow her arrears to continue to grow. It said that she should end her tenancy if she was not intending to return, to prevent further arrears accruing.
On 6 and 8 December 2022, the resident sent the landlord evidence “in regards to me fleeing my home because of threats to my life”. The resident said that the landlord’s process was making her unwell, and was “all too much for me”. She said that she was currently unable to find copies of the threatening letters she had received, but that she did not want to move back to her property as she was frightened and would have flashbacks. She said that the landlord had not supported her, and she needed its help with options to move.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord’s CW told the resident that she was unable to clearly read the documents that she had submitted (the copies seen by the Service were only partly readable). The CW said that the documents that were readable related to her health issues, and so she had attached a form to apply for a move on medical grounds. The CW stated that for her to be able to act, the resident needed to provide evidence from the last 12 months that would support her safety concerns, which to date she had not. The CW signposted the resident to support services, mutual exchange, and other housing options. The CW said that a Notice to Quit (NTQ) would be issued to end the resident’s tenancy if she did not return to her property or provide the requested evidence.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord’s internal email said that it had carried out checks that confirmed there had been no activity at the resident’s property for around 2 years. The email stated that the resident had provided no evidence to support her “domestic abuse case”. It said that it had informed the resident it would be undertaking its abandonment process, and that a letter and NTQ would be served to her.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord’s CW summarised her previous emails to the resident. The CW said that she had not heard back from the resident, or seen any evidence to support her allegation of domestic abuse. The CW asked that the resident provide the evidence or her “ASB case for domestic abuse will be closed due to insufficient evidence”. The CW said that it would be issuing an NTQ, or the resident could complete the attached 4 week termination of tenancy notice document.
On 15 January 2023 the resident replied to the landlord’s CW, and stated that she had been in hospital getting a hip replacement. The resident said that “I have not had the time or the energy to go through paperwork, looking for evidence concerning ASB domestic violence”, and that she wanted her case to be closed. She said that she could not give up her tenancy as the landlord would not help her, and a mutual exchange was the only way she could be rehoused. She said that she would agree a payment plan for her arrears.
On 19 January 2023 the landlord made a formal information request to the Police. It asked for details of any reports made by the resident in the previous 12 months, and of any actions it was taking “following a domestic abuse incident that occurred in June 2022”. On 26 January 2023 the Police advised the landlord that they had no records relating to the resident from the last 12 months.
On 2 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it was closing her ASB case due to insufficient evidence. It summarised the actions that it had taken, including seeking a Police disclosure. It stated that the resident had confirmed that she had not occupied her property for more than 12 months. It said that it had evidence that the resident had not made any reports of domestic abuse, and did not intend to move back into her property. It advised that it would be serving the resident a NTQ to end her tenancy.
On 4 February 2023 the resident made her complaint to the landlord concerning the conduct of its CW. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. She summarised the impact of the attack that she had suffered. She said that she had had to leave her property after the Police had put her into witness protection following threats against her life.
2. She stated that the CW had bullied, threatened, and interrogated her. She said that the staff member had abused her confidentiality, put her at risk by compromising her personal data, and made her “feel suicidal by her actions over the last few months”.
3. She said that she had email evidence to support this, but would not name the CW until the landlord confirmed that it would investigate and address her formal complaint.
On 4 February 2023, following an unsuccessful attempt to call the resident, the landlord’s email to her confirmed that it would investigate her complaint. The email stated that “it will take the team some time to investigate everything thoroughly”. On 9 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident with regards to her arrears. The accompanying rent statement showed that the resident had made a £100 payment the previous month.
On 2 March 2023 the resident chased the landlord regarding her complaint, and expressed her concern that her arrears were mounting up. She said that she had intended to purchase her property, and at some point sell it to allow her to move somewhere safe. She said that the landlord’s CW had contacted its team that were dealing with her RTA and told them about her arrears. She said that her RTA had been cancelled, she was unable to return to the property as it was unsafe for her, and that she was struggling to get a mutual exchange.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident for its delayed response, and arranged to call her the following day. On 8 March 2023 the landlord recorded the key points of its call to the resident as follows:
1. It said that the resident named its CW that her complaint was about, and summarised the events that had led her to flee her property 18 months earlier.
2. It stated that the resident had described how, supported by her family, she had decided to purchase her property, but that this had been held up by COVID-19. She said that its RTA team had said that her arrears would not be a problem.
3. It said that the resident was furious that its CW had brought up her arrears to the RTA team, and had been very distressed by the CW asking her why she wanted to buy a property if she felt unsafe in it.
4. It stated that the resident had said that the CW told her that she would be served a NTQ if she did not provide evidence of the threatening letters that she had received. It said that the resident was renting privately, and wanted to be rehoused closer to her place of work.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord passed the resident’s complaint to the CW’s manager. It stated that it was already outside of the timeframe of its policy, which it said was due to workloads. The landlord advised the resident of its actions, and asked that she provide the email evidence that she had referred to in support of her complaint. It said that it would aim to respond to her by 22 March 2023.
On 27 and 29 March 2023, the resident chased the landlord for an update of her complaint, and expressed concern about her mounting arrears. On 5 April 2023 the resident chased the landlord again. She said that she had called and emailed numerous times, and did not feel that the landlord was taking her complaint seriously. The following day the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay, and promised to update her in 1 week.
On 8 April 2023 the landlord’s manager apologised to the resident for the delayed stage 1 response, which they said she would be compensated for. The manager said that they needed to speak with the resident to clarify various points, as what she had described was a different subject to the ASB case that the CW had investigated, and subsequently closed. The manager expressed their sympathy for what the resident had experienced, and agreed to call her on 11 April 2023.
On 14 April 2023 the landlord’s manager recorded the background to the resident’s case, and that the landlord had been aware in 2022 that the resident was not living in her property. They noted that the ASB case had been closed following the Police disclosure, and that “things appear to have stalled ever since”. They expressed concern that the resident’s “non-occupation” had not been addressed, and that they would give thought to how the ASB team could support her.
On 15 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, which it summarised as being about its CW allegedly bullying, interrogating, and breaching her data. It stated how it had investigated the complaint, including its telephone meeting with the resident, reviewing her emails, and interviewing the CW. The key points of the stage 1 response were as follows:
1. It apologised for its delayed response, and offered the resident £20 compensation (based on £10 per month of delay).
2. It stated its belief that its CW’s writing tone was direct, but met the required standards of professionalism. It expressed empathy, but said that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint that she had been bullied or interrogated.
3. It acknowledged that the resident felt that the CW may have breached her data protection rights with her request to the Police. It stated that its action plan dated 28 October 2022 (not seen by the Service) included an agreement with the resident for it to contact the Police to establish risks. It said that it also had an information sharing protocol with the Police, and a responsibility to assist in preventing crime.
4. It said that its record stated that on 5 October 2022 the resident had reported “domestic abuse from a former partner”, and that she had previously survived “the serious and awful crime of rape by a stranger”. It expressed its sympathy, and offered support.
5. It explained that in response to the resident’s domestic abuse case, it had completed a risk assessment, action plan, and contact agreement. It acknowledged that in its recent call to the resident, she had stated that she had never reported domestic abuse, and that her report had been solely about the safety fears that she had detailed.
6. It stated that although the resident had not raised it as part of her complaint, it believed that it had not adequately addressed her concerns during her ASB case, and that there had been confusion as to what it was about. It explained the learning it had taken from this, and said that it had raised a new ASB case with a different CW who would contact her.
7. It provided contact details for the CW, and advised how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
During the second half of April 2023, the new CW discussed the resident’s case with her, and explained the need for evidence that would support her wish to be moved on the basis that there was a risk to her safety. The resident provided documentary evidence to the CW, who highlighted that the information related to her medical issues rather than a threat to her safety.
On 27 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its agreement with her to close her ASB case. It stated that its reasons for this was that the incident it had related to had happened 12 years ago, Victim Support had closed their case 2 years ago, and no new information had been provided. It said that it had advised the resident how to apply for a property transfer based on medical grounds.
On 23 May 2023 the resident called the landlord and advised that she was seeking debt advice from Citizens Advice (CA). The landlord’s call record noted that the resident had “fled due to domestic violence”.
During June and July 2023, the landlord’s income team corresponded with the CA and resident. The landlord told the CA that it was aware that the resident had fled her property after the perpetrator of her attack had been released from prison. It stated that it had opened a case to consider rehousing the resident, which had been escalated to management for further review, but that there had been no evidence to support rehousing her. It advised that if the resident did not intend to return to her property, she should end her tenancy to avoid further arrears. The CA asked the landlord to put the matter on temporary hold while it discussed options with the resident, which the landlord agreed to.
From July 2023 the resident corresponded with the Service about her complaint, and the further NOSP that the landlord had issued to her. Over the remainder of the year the landlord’s income team, CA, and resident continued to correspond. On 18 September 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was thinking about given her property back, as it was taking a mental toll, and that she was now in serious debt.
In early January 2024 the CA advised the landlord that it was still supporting the resident. The landlord asked if she had given further consideration to ending her tenancy.
On 26 January 2024 the resident told the Service that she was still living and paying rent at her privately rented property. She said that she still held her tenancy with the landlord, for which she had substantial arrears. She stated that she wanted the landlord to rehouse her, and clear her arrears. She explained that she had been unaware that she needed to escalate her complaint to stage 2, and complete the landlord’s process. The Service advised the resident how she should escalate her complaint.
On 29 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. Her key points were as follows:
1. She said that she had assured the original CW that she would provide the threatening letters as soon as she was mentally and physically well enough, but that the CW had “for some reason” contacted the Police about domestic abuse.
2. She emphasised that at no point had she ever experienced, nor reported domestic abuse, but that she had provided the landlord with a lot of personal information about the sexual attack that she had suffered.
3. She said that she had no idea why the landlord had classed, and handled her case as ASB. She stated that the confusion that all of this had caused had made her think that the landlord’s ‘ASB case closure’ letter on 27 April 2023 had been the end of its complaint process.
4. She described how lonely, and vulnerable to eviction she felt in the privately rented property, but that she was too afraid to move back to her main property where all her belongings still were. She said that the landlord had just allowed her arrears to mount up, without any follow up or check on her wellbeing, and described the severe impact that this had on her.
5. She asked that the landlord rehouse her, but that if it was unable to, that it write off her arrears.
On 8 February 2024 the CA told the landlord that the resident had agreed to terminate her tenancy. On 10 February 2024 the resident completed a NTQ to the landlord, which stated that it could not be withdrawn. She signed to agree that she understood that it would end her tenancy, and that she was doing so of her own free will. The NTQ stated that the resident’s tenancy would end on 10 March 2024.
On 22 February 2024 the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint, and the resident went through everything again. The key additional points of the landlord and resident’s discussion were as follows:
1. The resident emphasised how angry and distressed she had been by the CW’s behaviour towards her, and her belief that it was the CW that had prevented her RTA application. She explained why she had made the RTA application. She said that the CW had also contacted the Police about domestic abuse records, which were never going to exist as she had never reported or experienced it. She said that she was “absolutely disgusted” by this.
2. The resident stated that she had felt forced to hand in her NTQ due to her arrears, but that she had not wanted to. She said she was uncertain about returning her keys, as she had no way to remove her possessions.
3. The landlord signposted support services. It said that it could not move the resident, or write off her arrears, but that it would review her complaint. It said that it had seen its CW’s emails to the resident, and while it did not think that they were hostile or threatening, it accepted that they “were blunt and not very understanding”. It acknowledged that if more effort had been made to understand the resident’s RTA application, it “could have prevented getting to this stage”.
On 19 March 2024 the Service asked the landlord to issue the resident its stage 2 response. The following day the landlord offered to discuss the complaint further with the resident if she wished, which she agreed to.
On 26 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The key points were as follows:
1. It acknowledged that during its stage 1 investigation, the resident had said that she had not reported the domestic abuse that it had noted from her call on 5 October 2022. It explained that its retention period for call recordings meant that by the time the resident’s complaint was made, it was unable to listen to the call. It said that without the recording it could not establish if it had been miscommunication or human error, but was sorry that it had happened.
2. It said that it agreed with its stage 1 finding that there was no evidence of bullying by its CW, but that it had again been unable to listen to any call recordings. It said that it did however agree that the CW’s emails were direct and lacked empathy, for which it apologised. It stated that complaints concerning staff conduct were investigated in line with its human resources process, but that it could not divulge the outcome for reasons of confidentiality. It apologised for how the resident had been made to feel.
3. It further apologised for the number of times it had referred to ‘domestic abuse’ in its emails. It accepted that this failed to show that it had listened to, supported, or taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It said that it had opened the second ASB case at stage 1, to better establish the facts.
4. It said that it was satisfied that its second CW had handled the matter appropriately in advising the resident that she could complete a medical assessment as a means to seek a transfer, but that it had no evidence that would support a transfer on safety grounds. It apologised for any confusion regarding its complaint escalation process, and for the delay in its stage 2 response.
5. It clarified that the resident’s RTA application had been declined because the Government’s criteria stipulates that you must reside at the property. It confirmed that neither the actions of its CW, nor the resident’s arrears played any part in the RTA being declined.
6. It said that when it had become aware that the resident had left her property, it had made efforts to assist her with a mutual exchange or medical move, supported her with her arrears, and suggested an NTQ on numerous occasions to stop the arrears accruing. It empathised with the resident’s reasons for not wanting to give up her tenancy, but said that it was unable to withdraw her NTQ that had ended her tenancy on 10 March 2024.
7. It signposted various housing options that it had discussed during its call with the resident. It assured her that it had briefed its ‘former tenant arrears team’ about the matter. It said that provided the resident kept up just a minimal payment, it would not pursue her further, and it would not impact her housing options.
8. It acknowledged that it “could have managed your ASB case better”, and had failed to respond to some of the resident’s emails. It said that its policy was to offset compensation against arrears, but that in this case it would make the payment directly to the resident. It offered her £500 broken down as follows:
  1. £100 – distress;
  2. £100 – inconvenience;
  3. £50 – time and effort;
  4. £250 – goodwill gesture to reflect the impact of the situation.
On 3 April 2024 the landlord’s record confirmed that the resident’s tenancy had been ended, but that the resident had not yet returned her keys, as she could not afford the removal costs. On 8 May 2024 the landlord’s record noted that the resident had returned her keys the previous day, and moved out of the property.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman greatly sympathises with the resident and the horrific experience that she suffered in 2011, which led to her diagnosis of PTSD. The threats that she received 10 years later would have acted as a terrible reminder, and it was understandable that she felt the need to flee her home.
The Service has only seen limited information from when the resident fled her property in mid-2021. However, it is not disputed that the council agreed to cover the resident’s rent for a 12 month period, after which the landlord believed that she would return to her property. The following assessments are therefore focused on the period from July 2022 that has been summarised above.

Rehousing request, and associated staff conduct

The Ombudsman’s role is to complete an impartial, and evidence based investigation, which considers what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is unclear what caused the misidentification of the resident’s reports as being about ‘domestic abuse’. The landlord’s uncertainty as to whether the resident intended to return to her property was also understandable, and would have impacted the actions that it took.
Nevertheless, having opened an ASB case for domestic abuse, which the resident later denied she had ever reported, the landlord’s management of it caused her significant further distress. The landlord was aware of the resident’s history, and serious vulnerabilities. However, it failed to demonstrate its due consideration of this, and its approach was at times unsupportive, unempathetic, and heavy handed. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused, and associated staff conduct.
The resident called the landlord to discuss her housing options on 5 October 2022, and the landlord recorded that she had previously been the victim of domestic abuse. The landlord agreed to call the resident back, which it did in a timely manner the following day. The landlord’s notes from its second call recorded that the resident had previously been the victim of a sexual assault.
The landlord called the resident again the following week to complete an assessment. This time the landlord recorded that the resident had suffered both domestic abuse, and a sexual assault, and allocated the case to an ASB CW.
The resident made her complaint about the conduct of the CW to the landlord on 4 February 2023. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint has been separately assessed below, but there was a significant delay at stage 1 of its process. That delay meant that more than 2 months passed before the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her.
During their stage 1 complaint discussion on 11 April 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had never experienced, nor reported domestic abuse. The resident subsequently emphasised this point, and expressed her further bemusement as to why the landlord had ever handled the matter as an ASB case (it is unclear whether the resident specifically raised her ASB point in their complaint discussion).
No recordings of the landlord’s calls with the resident are available, but the landlord has provided its contemporaneous written record of each call, some of which referred to ‘domestic abuse’. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to definitively establish how or why the landlord identified that the resident’s reports concerned domestic abuse.
It is also noted that the resident’s email to the landlord on 10 November 2022 referred to “domestic violence”, although the context was not entirely clear. The CW’s email, which followed up on her first call to the resident on 29 November 2022, referred to the resident’s report on 5 October 2022 “regarding domestic abuse”. The resident’s reply to the CW corrected other points from the email, but did not refer to her use of the term ‘domestic abuse’. The resident’s email to the landlord on 15 January 2023 explained the reasons why she had not yet been able to look for evidence “concerning ASB domestic violence”. However, it is acknowledged that the resident may have simply been using the landlord’s terminology, or misused the phrase.
It is further noted that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident stated that it had also been unable to establish why it had believed the resident’s report to concern domestic abuse, as its call recordings were no longer available by the time she had made her complaint. The landlord offered the same explanation as to why it had been limited in its investigation of the resident’s allegations about its CW.
The landlord’s data retention schedule stated that it kept call recordings for 3 months. The resident’s complaint was made to the landlord 4 months after her call in which the landlord had first recorded that she had reported ‘domestic abuse’.
The landlord’s 3 month call recording retention period meets its statutory requirements. However, the National Housing Federation (NHF) issues data retention period guidance, which highlights that many of its recommendations exceed the statutory period. The NHF recommends that housing associations retain call recordings for 6 months.
Had the landlord’s call recording retention period been in line with the NHF recommendation, it would have been able to listen to the recordings of the resident’s initial report, and her subsequent calls with its CW. It is reasonable to conclude that this would have allowed it to understand how the resident’s report had been misidentified, as well as better investigate the conduct of its CW.
While this would not have undone the resident’s experiences of the landlord’s services to date, it would have allowed it to more definitively handle, respond to, and potentially learn from her complaint, and the matter overall. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation to this regard.
The landlord explained to the resident that it would need recent evidence, or at the least from within the prior 12 months, to support her safety concerns and request to be rehoused. While this may have been in line with the landlord’s policy, it failed to demonstrate that it at any point considered the ‘vicious circle’ that this created for the resident, particularly in light of her situation and vulnerabilities.
The landlord was aware that the threats that had caused the resident to flee her property had been made 18 months earlier, and that she had not lived there since. The landlord was also aware of what had caused the resident to be diagnosed with PTSD, and why the threats, which would have been frightening for anyone, would have been so particularly distressing for her.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord may have been limited in the avenues available to fully resolve the resident’s situation. Nevertheless, the landlord appeared not to consider that it was asking the resident to provide evidence from within the last 12 months, for a property that she had not lived in for 18. The only means for the resident to do this would have been to move back into her property, and provide any further threatening letters she might receive. This would clearly have been an extremely daunting, and distressing prospect for the resident, and the landlord’s apparent lack of consideration of it was unreasonable.
The resident’s frustration and distress would have been furthered by the landlord’s request that she provide the threatening letters from 18 months earlier, without demonstrating either that it had offered to support her with this, nor how the letters might change its position. The resident had said that she had left the letters at her property when she had fled. It was unclear from the information provided to the Service how, or if, the Police had obtained copies of the letters, but it was implied that the originals remained at her property.
Given the landlord’s policy and stated position that it would need evidence of a more recent “immediate risk”, it would have been appropriate for it to explain how, or if, the letters might support the resident’s rehousing request. This would have allowed it to manage the resident’s expectations, or explore other support options if there was no realistic prospect of the letters changing its position. It may also have allowed the resident to avoid the clear distress that the landlord’s insistence that she provide the letters caused her.
If the landlord did believe that the letters may allow it to progress the resident’s rehousing request, it would have been appropriate for it to offer its support to obtain them. If the letters were still in the resident’s property, which she was understandably afraid to return to, the landlord could have offered to meet her there to collect them.
The landlord could also have supported the resident by making enquiries regarding the letters to the Police, who could have also provided their own assessment of any potential risk to her. The landlord instead made a request to the Police for any ‘domestic abuse’ reports that the resident had made in the previous 12 months. As above, it is unclear how the resident’s report was misidentified as concerning domestic abuse. Nonetheless, the landlord’s request only concerned the prior 12 months, which again makes it unclear why it placed so much emphasis on the 18 month old letters, and to the clear distress of the resident.
The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it considered any of this, all of which was compounded by what at times, was its heavy handed approach to the resident.
The Ombudsman would concur with the landlord’s position that its CW’s emails to the resident did not, in and of themselves, constitute bullying or interrogation. However, the Ombudsman would also agree with the landlord’s view that the emails were “blunt”, “direct”, “not very understanding”, and “lacked empathy”. It is also unknown what specifically was said during the CW’s call to the resident on 29 November 2022. Nevertheless, it is not disputed that the resident felt that she had been spoken to “like I was a criminal”, questioned the CW’s training, and found the call extremely distressing.
Therefore, while the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of bullying or interrogation, it was entirely understandable that the resident would perceive it as such. It is also of concern how many times the resident experienced the distress of needing to explain her deeply personal and traumatic history to different members of the landlord’s staff. The Ombudsman has made a staff training order to this regard.
As a part of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it allocated a second ASB case to a different CW. While the records suggested that the second CW did not take the same heavy handed approach, their lines of enquiry only repeated what had already been done. Having established that the resident had neither experienced nor reported domestic abuse, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider liaising with the Police about the actual matter, to establish its view on any current risk to her. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord considered this, or otherwise gave due consideration to the resident’s situation and vulnerabilities in its handling of her ‘ASB case’.
It is further unreasonable that even after the landlord had confirmed in April 2023 that the resident had not experienced or reported ‘domestic abuse’, it continued at times to refer to it as such. There was evidence of this in the landlord’s call records on 23 May 2023. The Ombudsman would again agree with the landlord’s own assessment that this failed to show that it had listened to, supported, or taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
The resident would have understandably felt torn between not wanting to lose the security that her tenancy provided, and being too fearful to reside at her property. It is reasonable to conclude that this conflict would have significantly contributed to the resident’s shifting position regarding whether she did, or did not intend to return to her property. The support and other options available to the landlord did largely depend on whether or not the resident intended to return. While the resident’s dilemma was entirely understandable, it is acknowledged that the uncertainty would have impacted the landlord’s actions. This has been further considered in the ‘rent’ assessment below.
The resident’s vulnerabilities also included physical issues, and she had been seeking adaptations to her property that do not form part of this investigation. It was appropriate for the CW to advise the resident of the option to apply for a transfer on medical grounds, and to provide her again with the application form that the previous CW had sent her on 13 December 2022.
The landlord could have demonstrated a customer and resolution focused approach by supporting the resident to explore this option. However, it is not clear to what to extent it was discussed with the resident, nor what further support the landlord offered her. The resident has subsequently told the Service that she never received the medical application forms, but the landlord has evidenced that they were sent. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s unempathetic, and at times accusatorial approach to the resident from November 2022 meant that it failed to confirm her understanding, and that the opportunity was missed.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident recognised, and apologised for some of its identified failings. The landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident has been considered in the complaint handling assessment below. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the significant distress experienced by the resident as a result of its service failings. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made.

Rent arrears

The landlord records of its income team’s contact with the resident over the period assessed, were largely with a single rents officer. The resident indicated to the rents officer, at times very firmly, that she intended to return to her property. The rents officer needed to balance her wish to allow the resident every opportunity to return, with the concerns regarding her mounting arrears.
It was notable that while the rents officer dealt professionally with the matter, she remained supportive and empathetic to the resident throughout. This was evidenced in the rents officer’s internal communications, as well as in her direct contact with the resident, and latterly the CA. This demonstrated a customer focused approach, and a consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities that contrasted with other members of the landlord’s staff. The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s concerns about her arrears was also largely reasonable, and the Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of no maladministration.
The landlord issued the resident a NOSP in July 2022, and made appropriate efforts to agree a payment plan with her. Its income team’s internal communications at the end of November 2022 confirmed that it had given due consideration to the resident’s situation and vulnerabilities, and had held back from pursuing the NOSP.
In the intervening period the landlord’s income team made reasonable efforts to make a tenancy sustainment referral on the resident’s behalf. As above, the resident’s dilemma, and mixed messages about her intention to return to the property were understandable. Nevertheless, the income team demonstrated that it had listened to the resident when it apologised for any confusion, and confirmed its understanding on 14 November 2022, that she would be returning to her property. When its tenancy sustainment referral proved unsuccessful, it provided the resident with a clear explanation of why, and advised what it would do instead. The landlord therefore acted reasonably.
The resident’s RTA application did not form part of her complaint, aside from the misunderstanding that it was the CW and her arrears that had caused it to be declined. As such, the Ombudsman has seen limited evidence of the contact between the landlord’s RTA team and the resident, from when she made her application in June 2022, until it was declined on 11 November 2022.
The landlord referred to the resident’s RTA application in its stage 2 complaint discussion with her on 22 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged that if it had made more effort to understand the resident’s RTA application, it may have prevented matters from getting to the stage that they had. This was a reasonable conclusion with the benefit of hindsight. However, it was again appropriate at the time for the landlord to listen to the resident’s stated intention to return to her property, and for it to act accordingly.
From mid-2023 the resident was receiving debt support from the CA. The landlord’s income team maintained contact with the resident, and responded to each of the CA’s queries in a timely manner. As it had done throughout, the income team advised the resident (and CA) that if she was not intending to return to the property, she could prevent her arrears from further accruing by ending her tenancy. The CA asked the landlord to put any further repossession actions on hold while it explored debt options with the resident, which it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to.
In February 2024 the CA told the landlord that the resident had agreed to end her tenancy. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response the following month has been considered in the assessment below. However, it was reasonable for the landlord’s response to offer the resident assurances of the briefing it had already given to its ‘former tenant arrears team’, and the need for her to only maintain minimal payments to prevent further actions.

Complaint handling

At both stages of its process the landlord took the time to discuss the resident’s complaint with her at length. Its subsequent responses were empathetic, and appropriately apologised and offered compensation for its failings. However, the landlord’s actions and responses were also severely delayed at both stages of its process. As above, this was particularly impactful at stage 1, as it meant that the landlord took over 8 weeks longer than it should to establish its misidentification of what the resident had reported. The landlord’s delays also would have significantly impacted the considerable worry and distress that the resident was already experiencing. The Ombudsman has therefore made a further finding of maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 4 February 2023. The landlord initially responded in a timely manner and particularly given the nature of the resident’s allegations against its CW, it was appropriate for it to attempt to call her the same day.
When the landlord’s call attempt proved unsuccessful, it emailed the resident instead. The landlord’s email did advise the resident that it would “take it some time to investigate everything thoroughly”. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord made any further attempt to contact her about her complaint over the course of the next month. The resident’s complaint had stated that the CW had made her “feel suicidal by her actions over the last few months”, and the landlord was aware of the resident’s PTSD and other vulnerabilities. The landlord’s lack of follow up or contact with the resident was therefore wholly unreasonable.
It was only after the resident had chased the landlord for a response in early March 2023, that the landlord contacted her to obtain further details of her complaint. The landlord told the resident that it would aim to issue its stage 1 response by 22 March 2023. When that date came and went without any further contact from the landlord, the resident chased it a further 3 times, before it apologised to her on 6 April 2023 for the delays. This would have made the resident feel that the landlord was not taking her complaint or concerns seriously, and significantly compounded her distress. The landlord therefore again acted unreasonably.
The landlord’s records from 8 April 2023 are the first provided to the Service that referred to the misidentification of the resident’s case as ‘domestic abuse’. The resident’s complaint was handled at stage 1 by the landlord’s ASB manager, who recognised that what the resident was reporting did not correspond with the ASB case that had been closed in January 2023. The manager’s call to the resident on 11 April 2023 is the earliest evidence seen by the Ombudsman of the resident confirming this.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 15 April 2023. This was 70 days after she had made her complaint, and 39 working days longer than the timescale stated in its policy. The landlord therefore failed to handle the resident’s case in line with either its policy, or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its delay, but its £20 offer of compensation was not proportionate to its impact on the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was appropriately empathetic to the resident. It took a somewhat resolution focused approach by opening a second ASB case, and appointing a different CW to better establish the facts. The landlord had at this stage firmly established that the resident had not reported domestic abuse, and had not lived in her property for approaching 2 years. It is therefore unclear why the landlord continued to treat the matter as ‘ASB’, to the frustration of the resident, nor what it believed its second case might achieve for her.
While it did not form part of her original complaint, the resident had stated her misunderstanding of why her RTA application had been declined in her stage 1 discussion with the landlord, as well as the distress that this had caused her. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to clarify the matter in its stage 1 response, and it was unreasonable that it did not do so until some months later at stage 2.
The landlord wrote to the resident at the end of April 2023 to confirm the reasons that it was closing her second ASB case, which the resident mistook for being the end of its complaint process. The landlord’s stage 1 response had advised the resident of how she could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied. As such, that aspect of the landlord’s complaint handling was in line with the Code. Nevertheless, given the resident’s general uncertainty as to why the landlord was handling the matter as an ‘ASB case’ in the first place, her confusion was understandable.
It was several months before this misunderstanding became apparent, and the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 29 January 2024. The landlord undertook stage 2 of its process in a similar fashion to stage 1. It was again appropriate for it to call the resident to gain an updated understanding of her complaint, although this did not happen until 24 days after her complaint was made. The landlord’s stage 2 response was also again empathetic, and customer focused. However, while the landlord’s delays were less severe than those at stage 1, it still took over twice as long as the timeframe stated in its policy to issue its stage 2 response.
At stage 2 the landlord offered the resident £500, in addition to the £20 it had offered at stage 1. The landlord broke this down as £250 for her distress, inconvenience, time, and effort, and £250 for the impact of the situation. As above, while it was appropriate for the landlord to make this offer, it is the view of the Ombudsman that it was not proportionate to the significant impact on the resident of its service failings.
The Ombudsman has therefore considered all the failings identified above against our Remedies Guidance. Our Remedies Guidance recognises the fact that ‘aggravating factors’ will make the emotional impact experienced by an individual unique to them. This was particularly relevant in this instance, and is reflected in the Ombudsman’s compensation order below.
It is acknowledged that the resident’s ultimate wish to be rehoused may have been beyond what the landlord could deliver in line with its policy. However, the resident’s fears were entirely understandable, and her history, PTSD, and other vulnerabilities were known to the landlord, and would have significantly increased the distress caused to her by its failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused, and associated staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding rent arrears.
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 threatening letters that the resident received in 2021 would have been an awful reminder of what she had suffered. The landlord was aware of the resident’s history, PTSD, and other vulnerabilities, but failed to demonstrate its due consideration following her request to be rehoused.
This was particularly the case during the landlord’s handling of the resident’s first ‘ASB case’. It is unclear how the resident’s report was misidentified as ‘domestic abuse’. The landlord’s call recording retention period is half that recommended by the NHF, and meant that it was unable to establish how the misidentification had occurred.
For the same reason the landlord was unable to investigate the resident’s allegations regarding its CW as fully as it otherwise could have. Nevertheless, it did not dispute that its emails to the resident during the first ASB case were blunt, direct, and lacked understanding and empathy. It was also concerning how often the resident found it necessary to recount her deeply personal and traumatic history, which would have significantly added to her distress.
The landlord’s heavy handed management of the resident’s request to be rehoused was in contrast to the empathetic approach of its rents officer that dealt with her arrears. The resident’s conflicting statements regarding whether she intended to return to her property were entirely understandable, but would have impacted the landlord’s actions throughout. The rents officer made efforts to balance allowing the resident every opportunity to return, with the concerns regarding her mounting arrears. The landlord made clear that the resident need only maintain regular minimal payments towards her arrears to avoid further action, and handled her related concerns appropriately.
The landlord’s complaint handling and responses were empathetic, but severely delayed. This was particularly impactful at stage 1, as it meant that the landlord took over 8 weeks longer than it should to establish its misidentification of what the resident had reported. The resident found it necessary to chase for updates through this period, with no evidence of contact from the landlord. This would have compounded the considerable worry and distress that she was already experiencing.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £950 compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused;
  2. £450 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failings and delays identified in its complaint handling.
3. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation awards totalling £520 (if that award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £950).
4. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman further orders that within 6 weeks the landlord:
1. Reviews its training needs with regard to staff awareness of its vulnerability records, and with dealing with victims of crime and vulnerable residents, and writes to the Service with its findings.
The landlord should evidence compliance with this order to the Service within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its call recording retention period against the recommendations of the NHF.