Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202201502)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201502

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 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 handling of:
1. A management transfer.
2. The resident’s reports about her neighbour’s conduct.
3. The resident’s complaint.
This service has also investigated the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a sole assured shorthold fixed term tenancy with the landlord that began on 4 June 2018. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident lives there with her adult daughter.
The landlord said it was unaware of any vulnerabilities of the resident. The landlord’s records show their contact in which she described adverse mental and physical health. The resident explained to this Service that she lives with a disability due to the day to day impacts from fibromyalgia and asthma.
The resident was allocated her current flat after a lengthy period in temporary accommodation. She moved into the property with her daughter and dog. It was brought to her attention after moving in that residents of the scheme were not ordinarily permitted to keep dogs. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about prior assurances by its staff that she could keep a dog at the flat.
The landlord by its final complaint response of 7 May 2019:
1. Accepted it could not be satisfied it had responded correctly on the matter of keeping a pet in conversation/s with her.
2. Apologised for failings in service including poor record keeping. The offered resolution included transfer to an alternative suitable property.
3. Advised it would add her details to its management transfer list and identify a property where the resident could keep her dog permanently. The resident was to complete a form to identify areas of preference.
4. Gave interim permission for the resident to keep her dog at the flat pending its offer of alternative accommodation.
The resident confirmed to the landlord her chosen area for relocation using its area preference form in mid-June 2019.
On 14 August 2019 the resident submitted a management transfer assessment form. She chased progress of the transfer status on 6 September 2019. The landlord confirmed a management transfer had been approved on 14 November 2019 and the resident awarded Band A priority.

Scope of investigation

Under the rules of the Scheme, this Service may not investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of a landlord within a reasonable period, usually considered as within 6 months of the matter(s) occurring. The resident brought her complaint to the landlord in April 2022. At the heart of the resident’s complaint is the landlord’s handling of issues subsequent to a promise made by the landlord in 2019. The landlord considered this a relevant matter within its complaint response. This Service also considers the relevant events from 2019 as considered by the landlord to be key background information for the scope of this investigation. The matters are inextricably linked to the concerns that are the subject of the resident’s complaint. It is considered fair in these circumstances for this Service to assess the same period of investigation as considered by the landlord.
The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Summary of events

On 11 September 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident’s work email address detailing the following information:
1. It was due to introduce a new housing transfer policy and process that would allow applicants to ‘bid’ on properties. The policy would be published in due course. It would update the resident what date it would take effect.
2. The resident was required to provide up to date information to inform its re-assessment of her application in line with the new policy
3. Once the application had been re-assessed, the resident’s transfer priority date would remain the same but her overall priority may change.
4. To keep her original application date, the resident had to re-apply for a transfer through its online portal within 4 weeks.
On 16 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident using her work email address. It forwarded a copy of its September email and advised it had extended her deadline for registration by 2 weeks. It warned if the resident failed to re-apply, it would not backdate her application and she would be unable to bid for properties.
The landlord advised this Service that the resident was removed from its management transfer list at the end of October 2020.
The resident recounted to this Service being the victim of malicious allegations and harassment by her neighbour. This was described as including by handwritten letters threatening to report her to animal welfare and approaching her daughter in an intimidating manner about a parking space. She recalled reporting all incidents of harassment to her landlord and asking for help.
The resident said that the landlord’s response to her reports was minimal. She recounted the following:
1. The landlord’s officer visited her without prior notice. She was unable to accommodate access due to her dog being present. She asked for notice of an advanced visit. The resident recalled sending an email to chase the visit.
2. A further officer visited some months later and discussed her concerns together with her daughter. The resident recalls becoming very upset. Her daughter informed the landlord they were considering reporting the incidents with the neighbour as harassment to the police. They were informed the landlord would speak to the neighbour to provide a warning.
The resident informed this Service she was unaware of any change to her housing transfer status or the landlord’s scheme until she made contact with her housing officer to request an update. She explained that the landlord informed her she was required to re-register and she did so promptly.
On 26 August 2021 the landlord confirmed by letter to the resident its receipt of her housing application and requested further information. It confirmed by email receipt of supporting documents on 6 September 2021.
The landlord exchanged internal emails on 27 August 2021. The housing office referred to having ‘just been speaking to the tenant’ who had expressed lack of knowledge of the new scheme. It requested from the lettings service a backdated status. It was noted that the resident was to be required to provide further documents to complete her application.
On 24 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident with an update that all documents had been uploaded to her housing application together with a request for backdate to the original date of application.
By internal email of 27 September 2021, the landlord’s lettings service stated the following:
1. Confirmation of completion of the resident’s application.
2. Advice it could not backdate the resident’s application because it was not a waiting list; a priority banding was required first.
3. The case could not be referred for a panel hearing as it was not an application for safeguarding or welfare.
4. A request for advice by a senior member of staff as to whether banding could be provided outside of its usual criteria taking account the circumstances of the case.
The resident chased progress of her application on 29 September 2021. The landlord replied the same date to advise that an internal query had been raised about her banding. The resident asked again for an update by emails of 15 October 2021 and 28 October 2021.
The resident informed this service she received no response to her emails. She reported subsequently contacting her local housing office by phone to query progress of the transfer process.
On 28 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord raising concern that she tried to call several times and left messages for an update about the transfer.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord raised an internal request for the resident’s banding to be changed.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord’s internal notes referred to setting up a panel to consider the resident’s priority banding. A call to the resident was recorded updating her of an upcoming panel that would decide her priority for a move.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident by letter and advised that her application for transfer had been assessed in accordance with its banding criteria in band ‘transfers C1’ with no multiple needs.
The landlord recorded a panel decision of the same date. The category for assessment was noted as ‘welfare’. The decision form noted the resident was subject to previous incorrect advice about keeping her dog leading to approval of a management transfer to enable suitable alternative accommodation.
On 20 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord by email. She reminded the landlord of its offer to rehouse her. The resident raised concern about the length of time it was taking and not receiving responses to her contact. The resident asked for advice on what to do next and for help.
On 26 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She raised concern at the length of time awaiting a transfer and the landlord’s handling of the process. She described experiencing a ‘hostile environment’ with regards to her neighbour’s conduct. She expressed her housing situation as ‘extremely mentally and physically distressing’. The resident requested contact from the landlord within 12 working days with a plan to support her timely rehousing.
On 27 September 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord by email following contact from the resident. It required the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint procedure within the next 10 working days.
On 28 September 2022 the landlord emailed the resident an acknowledgement of her complaint. It advised that her complaint would be investigated by its complex team and responded to within 10 working days.
The landlord subsequently sought to compile records of its relevant prior contact with the resident to inform the complaint investigation. It noted being unable to find record of contact from her in April 2022.
During the course of its complaint investigations, the landlord made internal comments about the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s conduct:
1. It described ‘a few incidents where the neighbour has left notes on the resident’s door etc’.
2. It had received contact from the resident about the neighbour approaching her daughter regarding parking.
3. The local housing office met with the neighbour to request they do not approach the resident.
On 11 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It stated the following:
1. An apology it had not ‘received’ her contact made in April 2022. It explained a technical error or spam filter likely prevented receipt.
2. The resident’s original management transfer was subject to its replacement bidding service in 2020 with all customers having been notified of the change.
3. The resident had C1 priority from its February 2022 assessment in line with its transfer policy and banding scheme. This was a ‘relatively low’ award.
4. The resident’s rehousing application had no supporting details of reported anti-social behaviour. The landlord’s local housing service would contact the resident within 7 days to discuss her anti-social behaviour concerns.
5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
6. It advised the resident to consider her alternative rehousing options.
On the same date, the resident submitted a report to the landlord using its online enquiry form of harassment. She informed the landlord as follows:
1. On 9 October 2022 her neighbour left a note for her that she found to be intimidating about parking and made comments to her daughter that were distressing.
2. The neighbour said they had made allegations to the landlord that were untrue.
3. Her housing officer had previously advised the neighbour to leave her alone.
4. The resident further incident caused her anxiety and stress and to feel harassed.
On 13 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report of harassment. It advised her that it had informed the local housing service and that the resident was to allow up to 2 working days to receive contact.
The resident chased the landlord for contact to discuss her harassment report by emails of 27 October 2022 and 2 November 2022. On 28 October 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay receiving contact and said it had forwarded her request to the local housing service to respond.
On 13 November 2022 the resident submitted a request to the landlord to escalate her complaint. She made the following points in support:
1. The landlord failed to consider the importance of its 2019 promise to rehouse her due to its errors. She had taken steps required of her in line with this agreement; it was not her fault that the system had changed.
2. She had tried to contact the landlord several times without response.
3. The landlord caused delay to her being added to the new rehousing scheme by its further assessment of her circumstances and the difficulties she faced making contact with the officer assigned to support her application.
4. The landlord failed to arrange a visit with her as promised to discuss her concerns about the neighbour.
5. Her neighbour was harassing her by malicious allegations. She raised concern of differential treatment of her reports compared to her neighbour.
6. There had been a negative impact on her from waiting so long to be rehoused and facing interim harassment. She felt stressed living in uncertainty about her future housing.
On 24 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It apologised for delay responding. It confirmed that her complaint would be reviewed at stage 2 of its complaint process, with a reply being issued by 22 December 2022. It promised if it was unable to respond within 20 working days, it would keep the resident informed and contact her to discuss a new timescale.
The landlord’s acknowledgement also gave the following response to points raised by the resident’s escalation request:
1. It did take the 2019 correspondence into consideration.
2. Although it was its ‘intention to assist’ her via a management transfer, this was subject to stock availability and priority. Priority was often reserved for residents at imminent risk or on a recommendation from the police.
3. The resident was welcome to provide supporting evidence to the local housing service should she wish to appeal her banding.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about her contact with its staff about the housing transfer. It noted on its complaint records it could not be satisfied whether the contact did or did not occur due to a lack of clarity on its internal recording system and the relevant staff no longer being employed by the landlord.
The landlord made enquiries of its local housing service for an understanding of the concerns about the resident’s neighbour. The service replied that ‘there is not actually any ASB as such’. It supplied the complaints service with suggested paragraphs to include in the stage 2 response, including the statement, ‘I believe our Housing team have managed your reports adequately, when you have approached us regarding this.’
On 27 January 2023 the landlord sent to the resident its stage 2, final response, to her complaint. Its response said that:
1. It considered the previous housing transfer in line with its former policy. At that time there were many other residents awaiting a management transfer whose applications were prioritised due to their application date.
2. A new policy and banding scheme was subsequently introduced. It noted her registration for rehousing of 25 August 2021, assessed by a panel in February 2022. She was re-assessed in line with the new scheme.
3. The resident failed to respond to correspondence it sent asking whether she wished to remain on the list and setting a deadline. It apologised the resident was unsuccessful trying to contact her local housing manager about the transfer application, however its instruction was clear that she was required to contact the lettings team to keep her original application date.
4. It had done what it could to support the resident with a transfer. The resident was advised to explore her other rehousing options.
5. Its handling of her reports of anti-social behaviour was appropriate. It had met with her neighbour recently and requested they do not approach her or household members. It had tried to contact her to discuss any update/s but had been unable to reach her. It would be sending a letter of advice to all residents about parking.
6. It was sorry for the delay providing the final response out of line with its service level agreement. It also admitted its contact should have been more frequent and offered ‘more conclusive’ updates. It offered £100 compensation in recognition of its ‘poor’ complaint handling.
7. It was reviewing how it provided services in response to complaints with the aim of improving the customer experience. It had implemented a more effective checking process.

Post-complaint

The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2023 raising issue with its complaint response. She said:
1. The landlord’s response was incorrect and failed to consider the basis of its promise to rehouse, being its own error.
2. She was not informed about the new scheme and re-assessment as alleged. She had been chasing her housing officer for updates before the scheme changed.
3. The person assigned to support her registration to the new scheme acknowledged they had the wrong email address to reach her.
4. Even once her registration to the new scheme was competed, the assessment was subject to significant delay.
5. She was experiencing stress due to her neighbour’s actions. She was being harassed and was concerned the neighbour benefited from the landlord’s bias. She had not been contacted by the landlord as alleged to discuss and requested details of its attempts to reach her.
The landlord replied to the resident on 16 February 2023. It referred her to this Service as further recourse to her complaint. It advised having contacted her local housing service to discuss the issues raised.
The resident referred her complaint for investigation to this Service. She described her housing circumstances having an ongoing negative impact upon the quality of her life and health. She explained feeling very stressed and low about being unable to settle in her home awaiting rehousing made necessary by the landlord’s error. She reported experiencing panic attacks when she thinks about this, that in turn affect her physical health. She spent nearly 20 years in temporary accommodation awaiting allocation of social housing. She is very distressed that she remains in a temporary living situation nearly 5 years after being promised a settled move. She has found it upsetting to chase responses from the landlord and felt that she was having to ‘fight’ to be heard.
In response to this Service’s request for all records concerning the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s conduct and its response, the landlord stated:
1. It was not in receipt of reports of conduct or behaviour on an ongoing basis that could be categorised as anti-social behaviour.
2. It had identified an incident regarding parking that was managed as a general housing enquiry as it was a neighbour dispute.
3. It had no related actions or notes on its recording system. It provided a ‘recollection’ that an officer remembered an isolated incident in November 2022 when the neighbour approached the resident’s daughter about her parking and left a note. The officer spoke with the neighbour to advise that parking was not allocated.
The landlord did not supply any notes of calls, visits or correspondence relating to the reports made during the course of the period under investigation.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair;
2. put things right;
3. learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord operated a management transfer policy in 2019 and across some of 2020 that detailed how it would exercise its discretion to make direct offers of accommodation to an existing tenant. The criteria for consideration included categories of urgent needs and ‘other cases by exception’. It stated those on the transfer list would be awarded either Band A or B status, with those in Band A prioritised. Within bands, tenants were prioritised in order of approval date.
In June 2020, the landlord introduced a new lettings policy and application process. This stated internal transfers were to be managed in accordance with its transfer policy. The transfer policy was dated April 2020 and set out priority bands for deciding how offers to transfer applicants would be prioritised. The highest priority was to be granted to those in sub-categories of band A, classified as emergency or high priority. Band B was for medium priority and C band low priority. The associated transfer procedure dated June 2021 set out that transfer applications were to have priority assessed by a panel if on safeguarding and/or welfare grounds.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policies during the relevant time defined conduct within its remit in line with the definition of anti-social behaviour set out in the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. This included conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment alarm or distress to any person and that is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance. The policy gave examples of types of anti-social behaviour to include harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour. Where a report was not deemed anti-social behaviour, it was to be dealt with as a general housing query by the local housing office and outside of the policy.
The policy and supporting guidance set out a series of steps that would be taken by the landlord in response to a report of anti-social behaviour. These included an assessment of risk, response to the reported victim within standard working times, logging of contact, the production of an action plan, investigatory actions and referrals to support services as necessary.
The statutory guidance accompanying the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 required the landlord to have a clear focus on the impact of reported behaviour and expected good practice of risk of harm assessments.
The landlord had a complaints policy and associated process that detailed the following:
1. Its definition of what was to be treated as a complaint, “an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff…..’
2. Its 2 stage procedure:
  1. At stage 1, the landlord would provide a response in 10 working days.
  2. At stage 2, a final response would be issued within 20 days. If it required an extension of time, this could be extended by agreement with the customer to up to 30 days.
3. It will contact the customer once an officer had been assigned to discuss the case and ensure understanding of their concerns.
4. It will investigate the sequence of events relevant to the complaint including when the landlord became aware of the issue, the full action it had taken and its relevant policies and procedures. To support this process, it would conduct a full review of system notes.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as then in force set out the following expectations:
1. Complaint handlers having the authority and autonomy to act to resolve disputes fairly.
2. Fairness in the complaint investigation, including that it be conducted in an impartial manner, dealt with on merits and with an open mind.
The landlord had a policy and internal guidance about awarding compensation. It placed emphasis on taking account of the customer’s individual case, personal situation and how their life had been impacted by a failing in service. It recognised potential aggravating factors including vulnerable residents and those who had experienced previous service failing by the landlord. Alongside a separate tariff guide, it set out suggested payment awards.
The landlord was required to have regard to a complainant’s disability in line with its obligations in the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision/s or actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord was also required to make reasonable adjustments.

The landlord’s handling of a management transfer

The landlord added the resident in 2019 to its housing transfer list as a means of identifying a property to achieve its complaint resolution for accepted service failings. Its resolution placed onus on the landlord to make her a suitable offer. It was not the case that the resident was an ‘applicant’ to the list in the ordinary sense. The landlord awarded the resident’s transfer band ‘A’ status in 2019, reflecting in line with its policy that the resident’s rehousing circumstances were to be treated as ‘high’ priority.
Some months later the landlord introduced a new lettings scheme, policy and transfer policy. This represented a shift from landlord directed offers to a choice based scheme that allowed those registered to ‘bid’ (apply) for available properties. The prioritisation of bids placed, as with the previous list, was largely influenced by the allocated banding and the date of application or panel decision. The landlord emailed the resident twice seeking up to date information to inform a re-assessment of her application in line with its new policy. When the resident failed to do so, she was removed from the scheme October 2020.
It was reasonable in the circumstances where the landlord was setting up or transferring customer details to a new system, for it to ensure their information was accurate and up to date. However, this Service finds a number of issues presenting from the landlord’s approach to implementation of the new scheme to the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord sent its notifications to only one of the emails it had recorded for the resident; her work email address. It had previously communicated with her using both emails and she had frequently liaised in response to the landlord from her personal email. Considering the importance of the message and warned risks to her transfer status, it is unclear why the landlord failed to use her personal email address or other forms of communication when she failed to reply. The risk of a work email address changing was reasonably higher than that of a personal one. The resident was noted from the landlord’s prior records to be responsive and proactive in her contact with the landlord. The resident’s particular circumstances do not appear to have been considered before sending its final warning of her potential removal from the scheme. Nor is there any evidence that the landlord sent any form of notification advising of her subsequent removal from the scheme. A wider approach to ensuring a relevant message was received would have been reasonable in her particular circumstances.
Of greater concern, however, the landlord failed to recognise that the resident’s presence on the list was not as an ordinary ‘applicant’. By requiring her reassessment, potential re-prioritisation and the burden of supplying further details and evidence, it failed to recognise the exceptionality of her circumstances.
The landlord promised a transfer to the resident and was reasonably required to take steps to minimise further adverse impact to her in the process of satisfying its redress. There is no record the landlord reviewed the reasonableness of her removal from the list in view of the outstanding complaint resolution. It followed a standard approach to her registered ‘application’, requiring her to resubmit evidence only months after she had already done so. This was unreasonable adherence to standard process. It is unclear what further information or evidence could reasonably have been required. The resident’s transfer status was based on information already known to the landlord and unchanged; its own accepted errors had lead to her living in unsuitable accommodation. Its records show ongoing awareness of her occupation of the property. The landlord showed no regard for her particular circumstances and the facts already known to it or its prior promises.
The landlord’s notifications in 2020 stated it would re-assess a registration against its new policy still due to be published. This represented a lack of transparency to enable the resident to understand the process and criteria to be applied by the landlord. By seeking upfront information to be applied against non-disclosed criteria, this placed the resident at a disadvantage, being unable to access details of how the information would be treated.
A similar pattern of failings was displayed when the landlord handled the resident’s updated contact in August 2021. It further failed to give sufficient regard to her individual circumstances, the terms of its own complaint resolution or act consistently in line with its prior promise. It required her to gather and resubmit evidence of its outstanding complaint resolution. This was a further unnecessary burden on the resident. The resident was again treated as an ordinary ‘applicant’ and not a person to whom it owed a proactive duty still awaiting discharge.
The landlord’s email of 27 September 2021 showed some recognition that the resident’s circumstances required an approach outside of the standard process in view of the prior promise made. It appropriately identified the case as unsuitable for a panel hearing. However, no associated response or action was recorded to demonstrate how or if the landlord actioned or followed up this recognition of her circumstances. No steps at all appear to have been taken to consider the resident’s request for appropriate banding and backdate until after she chased updates. There is no explanation from the landlord’s records for this 5 month delay. The delay to any further action was unreasonable and placed a further obstacle to the resident securing access to alternative settled accommodation.
During this period of delay, the resident chased updates from the landlord on multiple occasions. The contact went largely unanswered or unacknowledged. This represented a failure by the landlord to communicate reasonably with the resident.
Despite identifying in September 2021 that her circumstances likely required a tailored approach and that a panel decision was inappropriate, the landlord in February 2022 decided the resident’s priority at a panel. It met on 25 February 2022 and assessed the resident’s circumstances as falling within its ‘C1 band’ with the effective date for prioritisation of bids as the date of its decision. The practical effect of this was that the resident, previously assessed as high priority from 2019 was now in a low band with priority from February 2022 and had reduced chances of success of being made offer. This was acknowledged by the landlord’s own correspondence that refers to this as a low award.
The resident’s circumstances had not changed between its 2019 award of high priority to the 2022 effective downgrade. The only difference was that a further significant period of time had elapsed. The landlord’s assessment of priority in 2022 failed to give the material factors of its 2019 promise and prior award appropriate regard or weight. The notes of the panel show awareness of its previous promise, however there is no explanation as to why its promise was previously given emergency priority but subsequently downgraded. Its assessment was unreasonable, being inconsistent with its previous actions and without reasonable explanation. It further showed a lack of regard to the impact to the resident of living for such lengthy period in unsettled circumstances due to its error.
Despite the resident highlighting concerns in her complaint with the landlord’s handling of the housing transfer, the landlord failed to recognise the failings assessed above. It simply recited its standard process and assessed itself against its ordinary procedure. It placed responsibility on the resident’s failure to respond to its emails to her work address. It failed to apologise or recognise the delay she experienced progressing her status on the new scheme after she re-registered. Although it apologised for difficulties making contact, this was followed by a restatement of the onus it placed on her to liaise. The landlord’s complaint response failed to identify its failings or put matters right.
In all the circumstances considered above, it is found that the landlord was responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of the management transfer. This Service has ordered the landlord to pay compensation and take a number of steps to address the failings identified and learning necessary in line with our Remedies Guidance. This Service gave particular consideration to:
1. The distress and inconvenience described by the resident. That a suitable offer has been subject to ongoing delay since the landlord’s promises in 2019 was described to have caused her mental anguish and caused her to feel unsettled in her own home.
2. The previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy. The landlord accepted in 2019 that there had been failings in its communications and acknowledged it could not be satisfied it had identified/ applied relevant criteria to her housing application. That the landlord’s promised resolution for those failings was subject to severe maladministration exacerbated the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s conduct

The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the reported conduct occurred but to establish whether the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was in line with its obligations and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances of the case.
This Service requested, but was not provided with, full records of the reports made by the resident about her neighbour’s conduct and of the landlord’s handling of those reports. Accordingly, the assessment of its handling of the resident’s reports was limited by the extent of records supplied.
The limited records are consistent with the resident’s account that she made multiple reports to the landlord about her neighbour’s conduct. Its internal investigation into her complaint acknowledged there had been ‘a few incidents’ reporting the resident being left notes ‘etc’ and that it had taken steps to advise the neighbour not to approach the resident..
This Service cannot be satisfied that the landlord assessed the resident’s reports appropriately in line with its anti-social behaviour policy and guidance or in accordance with the relevant statutory guidance. It is reasonable to consider that multiple unsolicited notes or any other such conduct were at the very least capable of causing alarm, distress or annoyance. There is no record of the landlord’s assessment of the reports either singularly or as a whole against its anti-social behaviour threshold in line with policy. There is no record or updated account that provides reasonable explanation for the landlord determining that the reports did not fall within the remit of its antisocial behaviour procedures.
The failure to apply its anti-social behaviour policy lead to the landlord managing the reports locally as a housing query. Its anti-social behaviour guidance provided a steer and structure for the steps to be taken in response to reports and ensured a process by which the landlord would interrogate relevant matters, including impact to the reported victim. The failure to follow this guidance lead the landlord away from steps that would have supported actions in line with statutory guidance eg risk assessments.
The landlord’s post-recollection is of verbal warning/ advice to the neighbour concerned. Without further records, this Service is unable to assess the reasonableness or otherwise of this as a form of responsive action or resolution. There are no records of the advice/ warning. There is no evidence of any best practice handling of a person reported as a victim of harassment. There is no evidence of any exploration of the impact on the resident and whether any support was relevant. There is no evidence that the action taken in giving the verbal warning was confirmed in writing or otherwise to the resident at the relevant time.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord expressed the neighbour’s conduct in terms that were reasonably clear as to the distressing impact and the potential for behaviour causing her to feel alarmed. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not explore its prior handling of her reports. It did identify the need to liaise with her to discuss the concerns and this was expressed as a further action arising out of the complaint.
Any further steps taken by the landlord to action this further review of her reports are unclear from its records. The landlord’s subsequent internal correspondence made reference to ‘efforts’ to contact the resident, however this was not particularised and there is no supporting record/s of contact. The interim correspondence showed the resident submitting an online report of harassment detailing her neighbour’s conduct as intimidating and distressing. The landlord’s customer service acknowledged the report within a timely manner. However, the resident chased contact on multiple occasions weeks later. No response was recorded. This Service cannot be satisfied that the landlord took steps to explore the resident’s concerns. The lack of evidence of response is consistent with a failure by the landlord to apply its policy and the statutory guidance.
The resident’s request for escalation of her complaint repeated concerns of harassment, associated distress and how her reports had been handled by the landlord. She also raised concern that the contact promised at stage 1 did not occur. By this stage, the landlord had received recorded multiple reports of conduct from the resident that would comfortably fit within its own and the statutory definition of anti-social behaviour. However, there is no record the landlord reviewed its previous approach or prior incidents reported to consider whether the conduct as a whole may amount to anti-social behaviour. Its internal correspondence stated there was ‘no ASB as such’. There is no associated record of the landlord reaching this decision or how it assessed the threshold as not met.
It is noted the landlord did treat the resident’s report of an approach made concerning parking in isolation from her other reports as a housing enquiry. Its final complaint response referred to having met with the neighbour to advise against approaching the resident. There is no record of this meeting. While the final response promised a letter to the resident to clarify the parking position, this was not recorded as sent until September 2023, some 8 months later.
The landlord’s final response determined that its handling of her reports of anti-social behaviour was appropriate. It failed to identify the failings noted above or provide appropriate redress to the resident. There was a continued pattern of the landlord failing to recognise reports of conduct that may amount to anti-social behaviour either singularly or as a course of conduct and failing to investigate the concerns in line with the most appropriate policy. This lead to the minimisation of her concerns and left the resident feeling unheard. It failed to consider the importance of the risk of harm to the resident and the regard required to the particular impact she reported.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s conduct.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was subject to a series of failings in process:
1. It failed to act on the resident’s clear expressions of dissatisfaction raised by emails in April 2022 as complaints in line with its complaints policy and requirements of the Code.
2. Its final response to the resident was delayed. The response was due by 3 December 2022 but not received until 27 January 2023, 55 days after the 20 days timescale set by its policy.
3. During the course of its delayed response at stage 2, the landlord failed to take steps to seek to agree an extension with the resident or keep her appropriately updated of its delay in line with its policy and expectations of the Code.
At both stages of the complaint process, the landlord failed to engage with the resident about the information it had gathered. Even where the resident contradicted the landlord’s account of making contact, the complaint service did not seek details of when contact was made or seek evidence of the contact to inform its findings. It relied solely upon the recollections of the landlord’s staff, despite lack of any records.
The investigation showed a lack of reasonable interrogation of relevant particulars or records eg of visit notes, call records. This Service notes this may have arisen due to the recording keeping issues noted later in this report. This lead to an over reliance on the recollections of the service subject of the complaint.
When acknowledging the resident’s escalation request, the first stage complaint handler responded substantively to some of her concerns. While it did confirm that her concerns would be further reviewed, its engagement with and response to her concerns were inconsistent with the need for independent consideration. This was out of line with the fair process outlined by its policy and gave impression of pre-judgment of her concerns before they had followed process.
The landlord’s internal service that was subject of the complaint drafted wording and findings used within the landlord’s complaint response at stage 2. This included a finding that the service acted appropriately. This Service recognises the need for the landlord’s complaint handler to obtain relevant information from internal services to inform its assessment. However, the input allowed into the complaint response went beyond the compilation of relevant information to support its investigation. This was inappropriate and placed at risk the impartiality of the investigation.
The resident’s complaint and escalation request to the landlord described her experiencing extreme mental and physical distress, negative impact to her health from her housing circumstances and her living with stress. The landlord was required in line with the Equality Act 2010 to give consideration as to whether the resident has a disability as defined by law. Outside of its disability related obligations, it is expected practice that a landlord would take into account any other vulnerability disclosed to ensure a sensitive and linked-up approach by its record keeping, appropriately tailored communication and offers of relevant support.
The landlord’s records show no regard for the detrimental impact to health as reported by the resident. There is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities during the rest of its course of contact with her. There is no record that the landlord acknowledged or responded to the health concerns she stated were connected to the difficulty of her circumstances eg by offering relevant support via internal or external services. It failed to actively engage in conversations with the resident that would have enabled it to understand her needs and make relevant reasonable adjustments. This represents additional detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint response provided an apology and £100 compensation for partial failings only concerning its complaint handling. It recognised its delay and lack of engagement. This response failed to recognise or address the full level of failings identified above and the sum of £100 was not proportionate to the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failings. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that account was taken of the particular individual detriment caused to a resident who had already encountered prior service failings.
The landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay further compensation. Particular account has been taken of the additional detriment experienced by the resident’s experience of further complaint handling failings following her previous upheld complaint.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

The records provided to this Service by the landlord and its response to requests for information point to multiple failures of effective record keeping practices.
This Service’s ability to fully assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her neighbour’s conduct was limited by the landlord’s failure to make or maintain reasonable records of contact held with the resident, the alleged perpetrator or its own relevant decision making.
This Service has considered multiple references within the landlord’s records to contact having taken place with the resident about her transfer request, with no associated record of the contact. The landlord failed to record her voice or its own advice to ensure consistency of its message. These were records that should reasonably have been retained. As its handling of the matter was subject to change of personnel it was of even greater importance that steps taken were recorded.
The landlord acknowledged having no record of her emails expressing dissatisfaction in April 2022. This lead to the landlord failing to record her complaint when made and in turn the resident seeking recourse to this Service.
When responding to this Service’s request for copy records, the landlord acknowledged being able to provide only partial records. It sought to complete gaps in evidence with the recollections of retained staff. This is an unsatisfactory means of evidencing its actions and not a reasonable substitute for properly recorded actions or contact.
It is noted the landlord apologised to the resident for failings in its record keeping in its complaint response. However, it recognised only partial record keeping failings and an apology alone was insufficient as a proportionate means of redress. The record keeping failings highlighted above lead to the resident incurring significant time and trouble by exerting her circumstances repeatedly and seeking recourse to this Service. The poor records contributed to maladministration under each of the above matters and prevented fuller reviews of its handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour at detriment to the resident.
This Service finds the landlord responsible for maladministration in its knowledge and information management. The landlord is ordered to pay financial compensation to the resident. When assessing compensation and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord’s previous record keeping failings are considered an aggravating factor. The landlord admitted by its 2019 response that it had failed to keep appropriate records of a vital conversation. That the resident has continued over a series of years to be impacted by the landlord’s mishandling of its records exacerbated the detriment to which she was placed.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman recently found maladministration in the landlord’s approach to knowledge and information management and its handling of customer complaints following a separate investigation. This lead to the issue by this Service of a wider order in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme as it was identified that the landlord’s practices may give rise to further complaints. The landlord was required to review its complaint handling and record keeping practices and produce a report setting its findings and learning with an action plan for preventing similar further failings.
Some of the record keeping and complaint handling issues identified in this case are similar to the previous case. The learning from the failings identified by this complaint should accordingly be incorporated into the existing wider review ordered as part of case 202011109.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer was subject to a pattern of failure over a period of time to recognise the resident’s individual circumstances and act in accordance with its prior promise. Its failings lead to a serious detrimental impact on the resident. Its delay to progression of her transfer status prevented her effective access to the scheme for a significant period. The reduction of the resident’s priority banding and the landlord’s failure to identify an effective date reflective of its 2019 promise on re-registration adversely impacted her prospects of making a successful bid to achieve a settled home. She was further placed at increased inconvenience, time and trouble by failures in communication.
The landlord failed to assess the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s conduct in line with its anti-social behaviour policy and procedures or statutory guidance. The landlord failed to follow timely steps in response that would have reasonably been in line with its adherence to procedure and the relevant guidance eg assessment of harm and risk. Its complaint investigation failed to identify its failings.
The landlord failed to act on the resident’s clear expressions of dissatisfaction. Its final response was provided outside of its policy timescale and it failed to take steps to agree an extension with the resident or keep her appropriately updated. Aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were also out of accordance with a fair process and this was considered to have impacted the level of impartial interrogation required by a reasonable investigation. Further, the landlord failed to show any regard for the resident’s reported vulnerabilities in line with its equality obligations.
The landlord’s handling of the matters subject of this investigation revealed multiple failures in effective knowledge and information management. .

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from its Chief Executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1950 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,350 to address the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of the management transfer.
  2. £300 to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports about her neighbour’s conduct.
  3. £200 to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint.
  4. £100 to reflect the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by its record keeping failings.
3. Complete a reassessment of the resident’s transfer application to reflect its 2019 promise. The landlord must:
  1. Identify a priority band equivalent to that assessed as resolution in 2019 (Band A).
  2. Apply an effective date reflective of its 2019 resolution.
  3. Not require the resident to supply further evidence as part of this exercise.
  4. Confirm the updated priority and effective date to the resident and this Service in writing.
4. Carry out an assessment of the resident’s needs and vulnerabilities and ensure the proper recording of any outcomes or reasonable adjustments required on its systems.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide training to its relevant members of staff on how to assess whether behaviour reported to it by residents falls within the definition of anti social behaviour set out in its anti social behaviour policies.
The landlord must incorporate learning from the above identified failings in its record keeping and complaint handling into the review ordered as part of case 202011109, required within 8 weeks. The associated report ordered within 12 weeks must include the learning and action points arising from this determination.