London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202316059)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316059

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 August 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including her request to be rehoused through a management transfer.

2.             The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.             The resident is an assured tenant of the property since 2008 and she lives in a 1-bedroom property, in a block of flats.

4.             On 29 November 2022 the resident reported to her landlord an incident of ASB with her neighbour. She said the neighbour had repeatedly banged a communal door against the external wall of her flat. The resident believed this neighbour was also a resident of the landlord’s, in the same block of flats. The resident asked the landlord to move her to a new property.

5.             On the following day the resident reported to the landlord that oil had been thrown at her front door and she believed the same neighbour was responsible. The landlord called the resident that day and said it would investigate the ASB allegations, but it was unable to provide her with an alternative property. It did, however, signpost her to other ‘alternative housing options’ to help her find a new permanent home.

6.             The landlord’s records show the resident’s neighbour was spoken to 10 working days after she reported the first incident of ASB, on 12 December 2022. The neighbour made counter allegations against the resident. The landlord’s records show it assessed the ASB as ‘low level’. There is no evidence to show any further action was taken in the form of a warning letter or an acceptable behaviour contract for either party. An acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) is a voluntary written behaviour agreement that a landlord can ask residents to sign to try to prevent ASB occurring. There is also no evidence that mediation was offered to the resident and the neighbour. Meditation is negotiation run by a neutral third party and is recognised in the housing sector as a tool that can help resolve ASB disputes between neighbours.

7.             On 11 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord if CCTV could be installed in the block. Between December and August 2023, the resident noted a further 6 incidents of ASB that she believed the neighbour had caused. This included an incident of the resident’s mailbox panel being broken and removed. There is no evidence, however, to show that these incidents were reported to the landlord. The resident was pregnant and gave birth during this period.

8.             The resident complained to the landlord on 19 July 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, and she wanted to move to a new property. On 2 August 2023 the resident went to stay with a family member following an ASB incident with the neighbour, as she feared for the safety of her and her child. On the same day she also contacted her local MP and asked for their help in resolving the ASB and her request to be rehoused with the landlord.

9.             The landlord issued a response under stage 1 of its complaints process around 17 working days later, on 11 August 2023. It said it was waiting for a report from the police regarding the ASB that the resident had reported to them. The landlord said once this was received, an action plan would be put in place. It said it would also take her case to its rehousing panel. This is a panel of the landlord’s staff that meet to decide whether a resident can be permanently rehoused, within the landlord’s housing stock. It also said it would look to install CCTV in the block for the resident’s security. It offered the resident £40 compensation for the distress of not being updated on her case.

10.        On the 31 August 2023 the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response as no action had been taken. On 6 November 2023, around 47 working days later, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint as she had not received a response. She said CCTV had not yet been installed in her block and there had been no communication by the landlord regarding a move to a new property. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 6 November 2023.

11.        On 18 December 2023 the resident had not received a response from the landlord and so, at the resident’s request, this Service intervened. On 27 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This was around 82 working days after the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response.

12.        The landlord acknowledged the residents wish to be moved to a new property, although this did not form part of the resident’s substantive complaint. It said in the response it had now received a police report required as evidence to support a priority move. It also signposted her again to other housing options. The landlord apologised to the resident as she was still waiting for CCTV to be installed in the block. For the inconvenience and distress caused it awarded her £750 compensation and upheld her complaint.

13.        On 12 January 2024 the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint. The resident said she had returned to her property and there had been no more incidents of ASB. She said CCTV had now been installed in her block, over a year after she first requested it. Despite this the resident said she would like to be moved to another property as living in the same block as her neighbour has affected her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14.        It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including her request to be rehoused through a management transfer

15.        On 29 November 2022 the resident reported ASB to the landlord. She said someone had banged the communal door on the external wall of her property on 2 occasions. When the resident confronted the neighbour she believed was responsible, she said she was verbally abused. She asked the landlord for herself or her neighbour to be moved as she did not feel safe in her property.

16.        The landlord rang the resident the next day to discuss the incidents and said it would investigate the report of ASB. It followed up with an email to the resident with suggestions of rehousing options for her. On the same day the resident emailed the landlord the Crime Reference Number (CRN) for the ASB incident from the previous day. A CRN is a reference number that police allocate when a crime has been reported.

17.        The evidence provided shows that on 9 December 2022 the landlord assessed the resident’s ASB case as ‘low level ASB’. It said it had found no ‘threat to life’. The landlord’s ASB policy says that a ‘vulnerability risk assessment matrix’ will be completed on all ‘high risk’ and ‘relevant standard priority’ ASB cases. No evidence has been provided to show a risk assessment was completed for the resident by the landlord.

18.        It is good practice for a landlord to risk assess all ASB complaints that it receives. The process it underwent to decide the case was ‘low level ASB’, is in effect the undertaking of a process to assess the risk. As such, it is recommended that the landlord formalises this process to ensure all ASB cases are subject to an effective risk assessment which includes its vulnerability assessment. This will ensure the holistic risk in all ASB cases is monitored and managed appropriately throughout the complaint lifecycle.

19.        On 11 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was disappointed no action had been taken against the neighbour since she logged the incidents 12 days previously with the landlord. She said it should have spoken to the neighbour when the incidents occurred, and she was concerned any subsequent action could ‘antagonise’ the neighbour. She requested that CCTV be installed in the block of flats.

20.        The landlord’s ASB policy says ‘standard priority’ cases will be assessed within 3 working days and ‘prompt action’ will be taken. The evidence shows that after 12 days the landlord had not made contact with the resident’s neighbour to discuss the ASB allegations. This was an inappropriate failure to adhere to the timescales as set out in its policy and the delay caused distress to the resident.

21.        The landlord replied on 12 December 2022 and said it had spoken to her neighbour who had denied the allegations and accused the resident of ASB. It said it was unable to take ‘instant action’ against the neighbour. The landlord said that without evidence it would be the resident’s word against the neighbours. It urged the resident to continue to report any further incidents to the police.

22.        The resident replied on the same day to say she had sent the landlord photos of damage to her property and the police CRN, which she felt should be enough evidence for the landlord to take action. The resident again asked for CCTV to be installed in the communal areas of the block.

23.        On 13 December 2022 the landlord replied and said it would follow up her request for CCTV. It signposted the resident to organisations that provide victim support and talking therapy. The landlord said it recognised how the situation had severely affected the resident. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will provide advice and support when managing an ASB case. This was therefore an appropriate action for the landlord to take.

24.        The landlord’s activity log shows it was noted it should have considered the use of an ABC agreement between the resident and the neighbour. There is no evidence to show that an ABC was used as a tool to manage the ASB. There is also no evidence provided of warning letters sent to the neighbour. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will use warning letters and ABC’s as interventions to help tackle ASB. There is no evidence to support why the landlord did not use both of these tools to manage the case after the first reports of ASB. The failure to demonstrate or effectively use the tools at its disposal to proactively manage the ASB case by the landlord was unreasonable. The lack of action by the landlord will have caused distress to the resident. It may have also undermined her confidence that the landlord was dealing with her reports seriously.

25.        Between 26 February and 12 July 2023 there was no evidence to show the resident reported any ASB incidents to the landlord. The resident told this Service of 6 incidents of ASB that occurred where she said the neighbour was the perpetrator. Two incidents involved her mailbox panel being broken and removed.

26.        On 12 July 2023 the resident said due to damage to her mailbox she had paid for her post to be redirected to another address. The landlord’s notes show on the 19 July 2023 the resident reported an incident that cooking oil had been thrown at her front door. The notes showed the resident wanted to raise a complaint as she was not happy and wanted to be moved to a new property.

27.        The landlord’s ASB policy says mediation between residents can be used to tackle ASB. This Service has seen no evidence to show that mediation was considered or offered to the resident following her ASB complaint. The ASB policy also says the landlord will agree an action plan with the resident to manage ASB cases. No evidence has been provided to show an action plan was created or used by the landlord. There is also no evidence to show any delay to create one was justified, for example due to policing primacy of the initial incident. The failure of the landlord to offer mediation or create an action plan was an inappropriate breach of its own ASB policy. The lack of action would have caused further distress to the resident.

28.        On 2 August 2023 the resident left her property to stay with a family member due to fear for her and her child’s safety. She also contacted her local MP and on the same day the MP’s office emailed the landlord to ask for a response on what it was doing to investigate the ASB allegations and what assistance the landlord could provide for the resident to move to a ‘more safe property’.

29.        The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process,17 working days later, on 11 August 2023. It said it was waiting for the police report on the most recent incident and it would then consider presenting her case to its rehousing panel. As part of the stage 1 response, it offered the resident £40 compensation for a lack of update on her case.

30.        On 31 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was not happy with its stage 1 response. She said no CCTV had been installed yet and she had not heard any information in regard to moving to a new permanent property. The resident said the £40 compensation would not cover the cost to her to have her mail redirected.

31.        The evidence does not show if any action was taken by the landlord between August and November 2023. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 and 3 November 2023 for an update on her case. On 6 November 2023, 47 working days after the resident replied with her dissatisfaction at the stage 1 response, the resident contacted the landlord a further time and asked to escalate her complaint again.

32.        On 11 November 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, however, there was no formal response. This Service sent a follow up email to the landlord on 18 December 2023 to prompt action.

33.        On 27 December 2023, 35 working days after escalating her complaint, the landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process. Although it was not part of her formal complaint, it acknowledged her request to be rehoused and apologised for the delay in taking her case to the rehousing panel. The landlord said it had now received the police report required to take the rehousing case forward. It also listed the resident’s alternative options to look for a new property. The landlord apologised for the delay and said it would chase up the instalment of CCTV in the block. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her £750 compensation for poor complaint handling and for lack of communication.

34.        The resident’s case for a managed move due to ASB was approved to be taken to the landlord’s rehousing panel. It was heard on 11 January 2024 but a managed move was not approved.

35.        The landlord’s rehousing policy states if a case is declined at panel the landlord will update the resident within 1 working day by phone and it will follow this up in writing to confirm the decision. It also states that it will be made clear in writing how the resident can appeal this decision. The policy says a request for an appeal should be made by the resident within 5 working days.

36.        The landlord’s records show it emailed the resident to inform her of the rehousing panel’s decision on 15 January 2024 after trying unsuccessfully to call her. This was around 2 working days after the panel made its decision.

37.        On the same day the resident replied to the landlord via email and asked for the appeals process for the rehousing panel’s decision. The delay of around 1 working day to inform her of the rehousing panel’s decision is unlikely to have caused significant distress to the resident. However, the landlord did not explain to her how she could appeal the decision which was a breach of its rehousing policy. This was inappropriate of the landlord.

38.        Internal emails show on 18 and 19 January 2024 the landlord was unsure if the resident was eligible to appeal the rehousing panel’s decision. The landlord failed to follow its process following the rehousing panel and this resulted in the resident missing her deadline for appeal. This, together with the delay to inform her of the panel’s decision, is indicative of an ineffective level of communication. This was experienced by the resident throughout the complaints process.

39.        The evidence provided shows that by 25 January 2024 CCTV had been installed in the resident’s hallway outside her property, around 12 months after the resident had requested it. It also shows a new mailbox had been fitted for her.

40.        With the agreement of the resident the ASB case was closed on 28 March 2024, following 5 months of no ASB incidents being reported. On 20 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had applied for a managed move for her. It said this could take up to 2 years to achieve. The landlord said it could only offer her a 1 bedroom as per her current property size. On 12 June 2024 the resident confirmed to this Service that there has been no further ASB. She said, however, as she was still living in the same block as her neighbour she would like to be moved.

41.        In summary, the landlord failed to act promptly upon the resident’s initial reports of ASB. This Service has seen no evidence that warning letters or an ABC were used as intervention or as case management tools as per the landlord’s ASB policy. There is no evidence that an action plan was created or that meditation was offered to the resident and the neighbour. The landlord did not keep in regular contact with the resident and its communication was sub-optimal throughout the complaint timeline. There was pattern of the landlord failing to adhere to its policies which was unreasonable. This will have caused distress to the resident. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her request to be rehoused was unreasonable and amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

42.        The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 19 July 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023, 17 working days later. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will send a stage 1 decision within 10 working days. The landlord did not recognise the delay in its stage 1 response. The delay in responding to the complaint was unreasonable by of the landlord and a breach of its own policy. This failure prolonged the complaint process and lengthened the time to achieve resolution which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

43.        On 31 August 2023 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response. She said she was ‘not happy’ with the outcome at stage 1. Despite this, the landlord did not recognise that the resident wanted to escalate her complaint and it did not respond to her email. The resident chased this on 6 November 2023 whereafter the landlord then formally took the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. This caused a further delay and additional inconvenience to the resident.

44.        The landlord’s policy says that it will respond to a complaint within 20 working days at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. After around 30 working days, from the landlord acknowledging the escalation request, this Service sent a ‘request for action’ email to the landlord due to a lack of response.

45.        The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 27 December 2023. This was a delay of around 82 working days since the resident first tried to escalate her complaint and far outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. This failure further prolonged the complaints process. It lengthened the time it took to achieve resolution which would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.

46.        The landlord awarded £360 compensation in recognition of the identified failings in its complaint handling. Had this not been offered the Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration. The landlord would have been ordered to pay a similar amount of compensation to the resident to put things right. The amount awarded by the landlord is consistent with what would have been calculated by the Ombudsman in line with the Service’s remedies guidance. As such, the landlord has provided reasonable redress to put things right for its mishandling of the resident’s complaint. 

 

 

Determination

47.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including her request to be rehoused through a management transfer.

48.        In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders & Recommendations

Orders

49.        Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified within this report.

50.        Within 4 weeks the landlord to pay the resident £400 in compensation for its failures in respect to its handling of the resident’s ASB case and request to be re-homed through management transfer. The amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears in a rent or service charge account. 

Recommendations

51.        The landlord should ensure vulnerability is assessed as part of all ASB risk assessments, in all cases of ASB.

52.        The finding of Reasonable Redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling is reliant on the landlord providing the compensation amount of £360 offered during its internal complaints process.

53.        The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks providing evidence of compliance with the orders above and its response to the recommendation made.