Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Octavia Housing (202423537)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423537

Octavia Housing

30 May 2025


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:
    1. Concerns that it offered an unsuitable property in 2022 when her tenancy began.
    2. Reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB), communication concerns, and management transfer request.
    3. Concerns about the property’s condition.
    4. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat which she moved into in May 2022. The resident is disabled and lives at the property with her child, who has vulnerabilities.
  2. On 18 January 2024 the resident reported ASB to the landlord. She said that her neighbour had sexually harassed her, she had reported this to the police immediately. The landlord called the resident on 18 January 2024 and opened an ASB case on 19 January 2024. The resident wanted to be moved from the property due to this incident. The landlord contacted the police for disclosure on 23 January 2024. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord wanting an update on the following dates:
    1. 24 January 2024 and then the landlord called her back.
    2. 14 February 2024 and said she was attending court on 19 February 2024.
    3. 19 February 2024 and the landlord then called her back on 20 February 2024.
    4. 6 March 2024.
  3. On 8 March 2024 the police responded to the landlord’s queries. The police told the landlord they deemed the resident was high risk if she stayed at the property. Her neighbour had pleaded guilty to the sexual offence of exposing himself to her on 18 January 2024. The police advised against having her live in close proximity to the neighbour and said they did not know any areas which she could not be moved to.
  4. On 11 March 2024 the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her ASB case and lack of action regarding her request to be moved. The resident said she and her child were living in fear and were vulnerable. The resident told the landlord her neighbour had installed cameras. The resident also raised concerns about the property’s condition and referred to past surveyor’s inspections. The resident said the property was not maintained and had structural concerns, plumbing issues, electrical faults, and other deficiencies.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 March 2024. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 19 March 2024 about her concerns. The resident’s councillor also contacted the landlord on 20 March 2024. The resident then called the landlord on 21 March 2024 and told the landlord her neighbour had returned to his home. The resident had also told the landlord she had concerns about the hand wash basin in the bathroom, when moving her walking frame. The landlord also spoke to the resident about the mutual exchange process and she confirmed she had registered.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 March 2024. The landlord apologised to the resident about her experience with the neighbour. The landlord acknowledged this would have been a distressing time for her and her child. The landlord said:
    1. It was liaising with police and reviewing current action imposed by the court on the neighbour (restraining order). Once it had received an update from the police, it would be in a better position to decide on the action it would take against the neighbour.
    2. There had been a lapse in contact by it.
    3. The resident had told it she was not interested in the restraining order and felt that moving out of the property was the only option.
    4. For the resident to provide evidence from her child’s school and it would consider that when making a decision about a management transfer.
    5. It had told the resident a transfer is not a quick option. She had registered for mutual exchange and there had been 5 interested parties.
    6. It had discussed the position of the camera with the neighbour.
    7. A surveyor attended the property in January 2023 and there were no evidence of concerns.
    8. Due to the resident’s reports of issues with the wash basin, it agreed to have another surveyor visit on 2 April 2024 or 3 April 2024 and asked her to confirm the appointment.
    9. It offered £30 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 March 2024 as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. This landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 15 April 2024.
  8. On 15 April 2024 the landlord approved the resident’s management transfer request. The landlord responded to the resident’s MP on this date about its decision. On 19 April 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord and clarified her outstanding complaint issues. The resident also added she was dissatisfied with her housing placement in 2022 for the current property. The resident felt she should not have been placed there and the landlord’s decision to let it to her was not appropriate. On 23 April 2024 the landlord told the councillor about its decision to approve the resident’s management transfer. The police wrote to the landlord on 28 April 2024 advising the landlord that the risk to the resident remained.
  9. On 10 May 2024 the landlord wrote to the court asking for a certificate of conviction. On 14 May 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord awarded the resident a total of £250. The landlord said:
    1. Its staff member who the resident escalated her complaint directly to was on annual leave at that time. It awarded a further £120 for its complaint handling. This was in addition to the £30 previously offered at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure, so a total of £150.
    2. Its surveyor confirmed there were no outstanding repairs but was trying to arrange a visit to the property. It had attempted to contact her about this and her complaint on 26 April 2024, as well as 2, 7, 9, 10, and 13 May 2024.
    3. It accepted there was poor communication and awarded £100 for the resident’s time spent in raising matters.
    4. It was unable to advise on how long until a suitable property would become available, but the resident should continue to bid for properties.
    5. If a property is rejected but is deemed to be a suitable move, the management transfer priority may be moved.
    6. In terms of learning it would provide feedback to its teams about its communication with residents and review the case again.

Events after the landlord’s complaint procedure

  1. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 20 May 2024 and found no issues with adaptations, and the resident did not request any. The landlord said the repairs identified were minor and decorative.
  2. On 22 May 2024 the landlord also made safeguarding referrals for the resident to the local council’s Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences. The resident viewed a property facilitated by the landlord’s management transfer process on 24 May 2024, she declined this as she said it was not suitable for her. The landlord received the certificate of conviction from the court in August 2024 and issued a notice of seeking possession against the neighbour.
  3. The resident first asked us to investigate her complaint on 17 September 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. The landlord told us that a possession order was granted by the court in November 2024 for the neighbour’s property. By 6 December 2024 the resident had refused another property under the landlord’s management transfer process. The landlord did not agree that the property was unsuitable for her and spoke to her on 11 December 2024 about property refusals.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident moved into the property in May 2022.
  3. The resident submitted her complaint on 11 March 2024 which did not include concerns that she was allocated this property in 2022 which she felt was unsuitable for her. The resident told us it was unsuitable for her due to her vulnerabilities. The resident first raised this to the landlord on 19 April 2024, which was after it had issued its stage 1 complaint response. There is no evidence that the resident raised concerns that the property was unsuitable before that point. This meant that 23 months had elapsed between the resident accepting the property until she first complained. Therefore, this issue was not reported to the landlord within a reasonable period.
  4. After considering the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that it offered an unsuitable property in 2022 when her tenancy began, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is not our role to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident has taken place or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. Including whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This ensures the landlord is given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before our involvement.
  3. We have reviewed the resident’s complaint of 11 March 2024 and her escalation of 28 March 2024. It is clear she raised concerns about the ASB case, the landlord’s communication and complaint handling, the management transfer request, and repairs in the property. These matters exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 14 May 2024 and we can comment on them. This includes its commitment in its final response to inspect the property to address concerns about the property’s condition and any outstanding repairs.
  4. Any matters that have not progressed through the full 2–stage complaint process fall outside the scope of this investigation. These issues, or any new events that have happened since 14 May 2024 which the landlord did not commit to in its final response, can potentially be raised separately with the landlord if the resident wishes to pursue them. This includes the resident’s dissatisfaction with the properties offered under its management transfer process and the landlord’s decision making to adjust its priority.

ASB, communication concerns, and management transfer request

  1. In the landlord’s final response, it accepted failings with its communication with the resident. This report will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and Guidance on Remedies. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes
  2. The landlord’s ASB Policy states it will listen to reports and decide on which action to take. The landlord will prioritise urgent cases of ASB and respond within 24 hours. For non-urgent cases it would respond in 3-working days. For an open ASB case it will communicate with local councils and police. It says it would support residents and provide referrals if needed. It says it may take legal or non-legal action.
  3. The landlord also operates a Transfer Procedure, which states it allows for management transfers. The landlord considers this when there have been reports of ASB, violence, or there would be risk to the resident living at the property.
  4. The evidence shows the resident first reported ASB to the landlord on 18 January 2024. This was about an incident with her neighbour which happened on the same day, and because of the incident she wanted to be moved. After the landlord discussed the issue with the resident on the same day, it created an ASB case on 19 January 2024. The landlord also sent the resident an action plan and contacted the police for information on 19 January 2024. These actions by the landlord were appropriate and carried out within 1-working day of the resident’s reports. This is in line with its ASB Policy and showed it was treating the resident’s reports seriously as it had prioritised the case. 
  5. The landlord’s ASB Policy also says it will maintain regular contact with residents about their case. Therefore, it was appropriate the landlord spoke with the resident again on 24 January 2024 to update her. At that stage, the landlord had not received contact from the police, so it told the resident it was unable to advise if she was eligible for a management transfer. Its policy says it would investigate the case and can request additional information. Therefore, its actions at that stage were appropriate.
  6. However, on 19 February 2024 the landlord used its discretion and confirmed to the resident it would be considering a management transfer. Although it had not received information from the police. This was reasonable by the landlord as it showed it would consider her request to be moved, subject to assessing all the information.
  7. It was not until 8 March 2024 that the police told the landlord it deemed the resident as high risk if she stayed at the property. With this information, the resident’s circumstances, and her child’s circumstances, the landlord agreed a management transfer on 15 April 2024. The landlord’s Transfer Procedure does not specify timescales for it to make a decision. It communicated its decision to her MP on 15 April 2024 and her councillor on 23 April 2024.
  8. The evidence shows the resident was made aware of the mutual exchange process by 21 March 2024. This meant 9 weeks had elapsed since she put the landlord on notice that she wanted to move. The landlord’s Transfer Procedure says it aims to maximise informed choices. By not evidencing it had advised her of the mutual exchange process earlier, this was unreasonable and reflects poor communication.
  9. The evidence shows the landlord was monitoring the ASB reported by the resident in line with its policy and working in partnership with third parties. In terms of support, we acknowledge on 22 May 2024 the landlord completed a safeguarding referral to the local council’s Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference for the resident.
  10. Additionally, the evidence shows the landlord was communicating with the police from the outset. A restraining order was issued on 19 March 2024 to the neighbour by the court. After this, the landlord asked the police for an updated risk assessment on 8 April 2024. The police confirmed on 28 April 2024 that the risk remained to the resident. On 10 May 2024 the landlord wrote to the court asking for a certificate of conviction. This landlord did not receive this until 7 August 2024. This delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
  11. We acknowledge the landlord issued a notice of seeking possession to the neighbour on 21 August 2024. We also acknowledge a possession order was granted by the court in November 2024.
  12. The landlord’s Compensation Policy allows for discretionary payments for when it has acted unreasonably. Under our Guidance on Remedies, consideration is given for time and trouble caused to a resident by service failures. The guidance on remedies also considers the length of time the resident experienced detriment.
  13. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it accepted that its contact was not as frequent as it had committed to with the resident. In its final response it awarded £100 for the time expended by the resident. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident chased the landlord for updates and contacted her MP and councillor, expending further time and trouble. We have considered this between 24 January 2024 and 15 April 2024, when the landlord accepted the resident’s management transfer. Given this was almost 12 weeks, the landlord’s offer of £100 is in line with our Guidance on Remedies for the circumstances of this complaint.
  14. Overall, we have not been able to conclude that aside from lack of contact from the landlord, that it has not followed it ASB Policy, or Transfer Procedure. While we acknowledge the resident experienced distress from her reports of ASB, we cannot attribute this to the landlord’s actions. We can also see the landlord had taken reasonable steps to advise the resident that the timescales to be moved were not guaranteed. It was also reasonable for it to advise to keep bidding for properties outside its Management Transfer Procedure.
  15. The landlord also made an offer of £100 which was proportionate to the time and trouble expended by the resident. It is clear the landlord has acknowledged its errors with its poor communication and attempted to put things right. The landlord has provided feedback to its teams about its communication standards. This shows it was trying to learn from outcomes. Therefore, in terms of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, communication concerns, and management transfer request, we have found reasonable redress. A finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that the financial remedy of £100 is paid to the resident, if not already done so.

Concerns about the property’s condition

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook sets out that it aims to complete routine repairs within 15-working days. Urgent repairs within 5-working days. For emergency repairs it will attempt to make safe within 24 hours.
  2. The resident told the landlord in her complaint submission that she had concerns of the property’s condition on 11 March 2024. However, there is no evidence to support that the property required repairs at that stage. The landlord’s surveyor found no repair was required to the property in January 2023 when it was last surveyed.
  3. There is no evidence that the resident reported to the landlord that further repairs were needed in her property until 21 March 2024.  This is when the resident told the landlord she had problems with the wash basin. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a new property inspection targeted for 2 April 2024 or 3 April 2024. Both dates offered were inside the 15-working day timescale set for routine repairs.
  4. We acknowledge the appointment did not take place until 20 May 2024 due to the resident’s circumstances. It is clear the landlord made reasonable attempts in April 2024 and May 2024 to contact her and to arrange a new inspection date.
  5. The landlord’s Adaptation Policy says it can carry out minor adaptations without the need for a Disabled Facilities Grant. For minor adaptations the resident would be contacted by its contractors in 10-working days. The landlord committed to inspecting the property in its final response. We have seen evidence that on 20 May 2024 the resident did not request any adaptation works to the property and the surveyor did not make any adaptation recommendations.
  6. Additionally, we have not seen any evidence where the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord demonstrated it was willing to act on the resident’s concerns about any potential minor adaptations that were needed.
  7. Instead, the landlord’s inspection on 20 May 2024 had found that it needed to complete minor repairs and decorative works. However, these were not completed until 7 July 2024. This meant it had taken the landlord 34-working days to complete repairs, 19-working days over the timescales set in its Repairs Handbook. This was inappropriate and inconvenient for the resident.
  8. We have considered there were no adaptations agreed or requested by the resident. The landlord demonstrated it was listening to the resident’s concerns. By initially organising an inspection in April 2024 and committing to inspecting the property in its final response, the landlord’s response was appropriate and showed it was resolution focused. However, its actions to complete repairs which it did identify was inappropriate and caused a 19-working day delay. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition.
  9. Orders have been made to apologise to the resident for the 19-working day delay to complete repairs. As well as award the resident £50 in compensation.  This amount is in line with our Guidance on Remedies for short duration delays which have caused inconvenience to the resident.

The resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 in 5-working days. It aims to provide a response at stage 1 in 10-working days. At stage 2 it will acknowledge escalations in 5-working days and it aims to provide its response in 20-working days. At both stages, it can agree extensions with the resident.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within 5-working days on 15 March 2024, this was appropriate. It was also appropriate that the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 8-working days after (27 March 2024). Its timeliness at stage 1 was in line with its Complaints Policy. The landlord acknowledged a delay in its stage 1 complaint response regarding its complaint handling. There is no evidence this was the case and therefore the landlord has miscommunicated this to the resident. However, this would not have adversely affected the resident’s complaint journey
  3. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 28 March 2024. This was not acknowledged by the landlord until 15 April 2024. This meant it had taken the landlord 11-working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation. This was inappropriate action by the landlord, as it had exceeded the timescales in its Complaints Policy by 6-working days.
  4. The landlord would have had until 14 May 2024 to send its stage 2 complaint response in line with its Complaints Policy. The landlord did send its stage 2 complaint response on this date, therefore it was appropriate.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged delays to the resident’s complaint journey. The landlord awarded a total of £150 for its complaint handling failings. The delay was 6-working days. While this amount was generous, it is ultimately within what we would expect in our Guidance on Remedies for failings which adversely affected the resident. Further, the landlord learned from outcomes and provided feedback to its teams about its communication standards. The landlord also said as part of its learning it would conduct a case review.
  6. As the landlord had identified the error, put things right, and showed it was willing to learn from outcomes, we find reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. This finding has been made on the understanding that the financial remedy of £150 is paid to the resident, if not already done so. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to share its case review as part of its learnings with us.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42.c. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that it offered an unsuitable property in 2022 when her tenancy began, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, communication concerns, and management transfer request.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the delays in completing repairs to address the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition.
    2. Pay the resident £50 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by delays in completing repairs to address her concerns about the property’s condition.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord is recommended to re-offer £250 to the resident as set out in its final response of 14 May 2024. This is made up of:
    1. £100 for the time and trouble expended by the resident due to its communication failures as identified by it.
    2. £150 it awarded for the delays in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord is also recommended to share its review of the case with us, which was stated in its final response of 14 May 2024.