The Guinness Partnership Limited (202126603)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126603

The Guinness Partnership Limited

14 December 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and her request for a housing transfer.
2. Concerns that the property offered did not meet her housing needs.
3. Concerns about the costs associated with the move.
4. Reports about the condition of the property upon letting.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint in this investigation.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord’s, a housing association. The previous tenancy began on 4 November 2011 and ended in November 2021. The property was a 3 bedroom house. She was transferred to another 3 bedroom house on 30 November 2021.
The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that the resident is elderly and that she provided respite care for her grandchild who has a disability.

Scope of investigation

This Service notes the resident’s comments regarding the detriment to her mental health caused by the delays during the course of her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causations of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Landlord obligations

The ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines antisocial behaviour as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord has also adopted this definition in its ASB policy. The policy notes that it will:
1. Take a victim centred approach and communicate clearly with its customers to explain antisocial behaviour and its approach, so they understand what they can expect from it and what it expects from them.
2. Provide appropriate support to victims and witnesses, including referrals to support services and keep them proactively informed about its response to those reports and progress in dealing with ASB.
3. Risk assess the level of harm the antisocial behaviour, hate crime or hate incidents causes to individuals when the matter is reported and while a resolution is sought.
4. Aim to resolve cases promptly using the full range of methods by taking reasonable, timely and proportionate action appropriate to the harm caused.
5. Work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour, hate crime, and hate incidents. The action taken will be proportionate to the severity, impact, and frequency of the ASB and the evidence available to support the case.
6. Where responsibility for investigating an incident lies with another agency, such as the police or local authority, it will provide that agency with appropriate support. This includes providing relevant information to help them resolve the matter.
Its housing allocations policy states that:
1. It is required by the Regulator of Social Housing to let its homes in a fair, transparent, and efficient way that takes into account the housing needs and aspirations of tenants and potential tenants.
2. It may in exceptional circumstances, agree to move an existing tenant to another property when under a management move where:
  1. A tenant needs to move urgently due to the threat of or actual violence or harm and when there is an imminent risk to them or a member of their household if they remain at that property or
  2. There is significant and insurmountable problem(s) associated with the tenant’s occupation of their current home.
3. Residents awarded a management move will be offered, if possible, a property of the same size and type. If an offer is refused the applicant will lose the priority. It will operate a review process for applicants who wish to have an offer of accommodation or an allocations decision reviewed.
4. When assessing housing applications it will consider the extended family members of the resident, provided they can provide evidence that they are permanent members of the household.
Under the tenancy agreement:
1. The resident agrees to:
  1. Pay 2 weeks rent at the start of the tenancy,
  2. Keep the inside of their home and any of the fixtures in repair, including internal decorations.
  3. Return their keys by 10 am the next working day after their tenancy ends or they will be charged the cost of changing the locks and continue to incur charges on the rent until the landlord has regained possession of the property.
2. The landlord agrees to maintain the outside structure of the property and keep in repair and proper working order any installations for heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of gas and electricity within the home. This includes basins, sinks, baths, flushing systems, and waste pipes.
The landlord’s empty homes policy sets out its commitment to let homes at a consistent standard of maintenance that provides a good quality home for the new customer. It defines the empty home standard as the minimum state and condition that a property must reach before it can be considered for letting to a new customer.
The landlord’s repairs policy notes a repair as work that is carried out in response to notification of a need for repair by a resident. It further states that:
1. It recognises that some customers may need more help when it comes to meeting their repair responsibilities. It may, at its discretion, provide a service in addition to its statutory and contractual responsibilities, to assist customers whom it considers to be in need of support to meet the conditions of their tenancy.
2. It must maintain the outside and the structure of the home boundary walls and fences that are present at the start of a tenancy. It is responsible for boundary fences that are between 2 properties, when the other property is not one of its own. Customers are responsible for repairing or replacing dividing fences that divide 2 of its rented homes.
It aims to complete:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours
2. Routine repairs within 28 days
The landlord has a 2 complaints handling process (policy effective 21 July 2021). It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond to:
1. Stage one complaints within 10 working days of receipt
2. Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receipt
It will consider an offer of compensation when something has gone wrong and it is at fault and an apology or remedy alone is not sufficient.

Summary of events

The landlord noted on 18 August 2021 that the resident wanted to be transferred to another property due to reports of ASB. It said the resident reported that:
1. She was being wrongly targeted by a group of youths who took offence to comments made by her neighbour about the noise and drugs issues in the area.
2. Every night for the past 2 weeks, a group of youths had ripped up boards at her windows, kicked or banged on them and used racially abusive language towards her.
3. She reported the incidents to the police but they could not take any further action as there was no evidence.
4. She had purchased CCTV because the police were not helping without evidence but it did not capture any incidents at night because the streetlight was not working.
5. Her son had been staying with her, so the perpetrators had been trying to lure him out to get him into trouble.
6. She provided care to her grandson who is disabled which gave his parents some respite. The parents had stopped bringing her grandson over as it was unsafe due to the ASB.
The landlord noted that the resident gave the address she suspected the youths responsible lived. She was upset as she could no longer have her grandchildren and she wanted to be moved. It further noted that it had reported the faulty streetlight for repair.
It interviewed the resident and wrote to her on 18 August 2021. It said it treats all harassment reports as a priority and would contact the relevant teams to discuss a move. It also advised her to call the police if she felt threatened. Its internal records further noted that it completed a risk assessment form.
The landlord noted in its internal communication that the resident is elderly and unable to leave her house due to the ASB. It discussed whether there was an option to move her given her age and the issues she was facing. It noted that her area was very problematic with drug use and county lines activity. It felt she would struggle with the usual roots of rehousing or the internal transfer process.
The landlord contacted the police on 25 August 2021 regarding the resident’s report. It advised them that the resident is elderly and vulnerable and keen to move. It requested any information that would assist with its investigation. The police responded that they:
1. Had received a number of calls from the resident concerning the matter.
2. Had not identified any offenders for the incidents reported.
3. Would provide high visibility in the area to try to disrupt the activity.
The landlord contacted the police on 26 August 2021 and asked it to provide written evidence to confirm the frequency of contact from the resident to support her in being rehoused. It also contacted the resident who advised that:
1. The incidents had reduced as items were no longer being thrown at her windows.
2. She felt this was likely because she had CCTV which was acting as a deterrent but it had not captured any incidents.
3. Whenever she was out of the property the group of youths (in their late teens or early twenties) racially abused her.
4. She desperately needed to leave as her son no longer brought her grandson to visit due to safety concerns.
It advised the resident that it had asked the police to write a supporting statement so it could consider her for a management move.
The police wrote to the landlord on 29 August 2021, and provided a record of reports received from the resident to assist with its investigation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 August 2021 for an update on her case. She reported that the behaviour had resumed and she was scared to go to sleep or leave the property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 September 2021. Below is a summary of their discussion:
1. The resident advised that whilst her house was not being targeted, there were still issues with noise, youths congregating outside and drug dealing.
2. The landlord advised her that the police had sent a copy of the call logs, but most had been closed with no further action.
3. It said it could not proceed with an application for urgent rehousing without written confirmation from the police that she was at risk and needed to be moved.
4. The resident advised the landlord that she had a letter from her doctor. It asked her to send this in as it may support a managed move.
On 13 September 2021, the resident sent the landlord a copy of the doctor’s letter. The letter stated that the resident needed an urgent move and required a 3 bedroom property suitable for her son and grandson who has autism. It noted that he stayed with the resident regularly to provide respite to his parents.
The landlord discussed the resident’s case in an internal email dated 15 September 2021. It said the police informed it that they had received a complaint from the resident and had asked the landlord to accompany them on a visit to the property. It further said that it was still looking into the repair to the streetlight and noted that it may take longer to resolve.
The landlord spoke to the resident about the areas she would prefer to move to on 16 September 2021. It noted that one of its employees would be attending with the police on 20 September 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 September 2021 and gave the areas she would like to move too. She said she would like any property within these areas as along as she would be able to refuse it if it was unsuitable for any reason. It reassured her it would check if there were any properties available that may be suitable and provide feedback the following week. The landlord also completed a management move form on behalf of the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 20 September 2021 and advised that they were still waiting on the outcome of the managed move decision. It also noted in its internal emails that:
1. The streetlight in the resident’s area had been repaired.
2. The resident reported that the situation had not changed and that her son’s car tyres were getting slashed but the police had advised that it was unable to pursue an investigation without evidence.
3. The resident advised that she did not want the police to visit her property anymore, as it was drawing more attention to her address and other neighbours were afraid to come forward.
4. The resident provided an address which she felt was linked to drug related activities in the neighbourhood. The landlord advised that it had limited reports of this, so people in the area needed to ensure they were passing on intelligence.
5. After the joint visit with the police, they interviewed the neighbour mentioned by the resident and questioned them but they denied any allegations of drug dealing at the address.
6. It noted that it would plan some door knocking in and around the area to make its presence known and would be supporting the police in their task to the local authority to remove the bandstand in the park and look at some CCTV and lighting.
The landlord updated the resident on 21 September 2021 that she had been approved for a managed move. The resident informed the landlord that the issues were still ongoing as there was some disturbance the previous night due to youths congregating around her property. It sent the resident a letter on 22 September 2021 advising that:
1. She had been awarded the highest priority for a transfer application.
2. It would offer her a property that met her housing needs.
3. She would only be offered one property and if refused, it may remove the priority award.
The resident contacted the landlord’s chief executive on 24 September 2021 and reported that the issue was becoming unbearable and the landlord had done nothing to assist her. She said she would be removing the cameras and report the matter to the press. The landlord responded that it had arranged for the matter to be investigated by its complaints team.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 27 September 2021. It noted from the conversation that the resident felt let down. It said it explained all of the actions it had taken so far but the resident advised that she had made an appointment to speak with a local paper. It further noted that the resident reported that:
1. The gang attacking her house had told other gangs so there were a larger group congregating on the field and causing ASB.
2. The tyres of her son’s car were flat every morning so he had started to sit in his car with a baseball bat to prevent it from being damaged.
3. Her son’s relationship had ended as his partner was fearful the gang may target them.
It advised the resident that she was on the priority list to be moved and should be phoning the police to report the incidents.
The resident’s son contacted the landlord on 4 October 2021 and reported that:
1. She was being knocked into hedges and abused in the streets.
2. Food was being thrown over her fence to poison the dog.
The landlord noted that there were no properties available to offer the resident.
The following occurred between 5 October and 12 October 2021:
1. The landlord wrote to the resident’s son and asked if they were still reporting the incidents to the police. It advised that the management move application would remain live for 12 weeks, and it would aim to move her within this timeframe. It advised that there were no properties available at the time and if they had considered registering with the local authority to improve her chances of moving quickly.
2. The resident said in an email to the landlord that no one had contacted her from the complaints team. She said she had turned off the cameras in hope that the damage to the car and the throwing of food over the gate would cease. She did not want to deal with the ASB caseworker anymore as she had been left as a target for the perpetrators. The resident’s son also advised the landlord the same day that the police were unable to help despite the continued reports of banging on their windows. He said they had advised him to keep getting evidence and continue to report the issue to the local authority or landlord.
3. The landlord advised him to continue to report the matter to the police. It also said there were no properties to offer yet and asked how the resident was managing.
The landlord contacted the police on 13 October 2021 and asked if the resident had been reporting the incidents. It also asked what action it was taking concerning the reports. The resident contacted the landlord the same day and said she was being left to suffer for something that was not her fault. She said she would not be using the cameras anymore as this could jeopardise her safety. She said the situation was getting worse and she was tired of getting pushed into railing and walls.
On 14 October 2021, the resident’s son asked the landlord why she could not be moved temporarily until a permanent property became available. He said the police advised that it was getting dangerous and thought they had already been moved. The landlord advised him to go on its website and register for its internal housing allocations and bid for any suitable properties available.
On the same day, the landlord’s complaints team advised the ASB team to contact the resident. The caseworker contacted the resident and noted that:
1. She was really upset, terrified and said she felt as if her life was over.
2. The ASB was so bad that she felt like a prisoner in her own home and unable to see her grandson whom she used to care for.
3. She was recently pushed outside a shop and verbally abused by a group of people.
4. She sent footage of the perpetrators banging on the windows to the police but she asked the police to not take any action as she was fearful of repercussions. She said the police did approach the gang and made things worse.
5. The landlord advised the resident to continue to report the incidents to the police. It offered a referral to customer support and target hardening but the resident refused as she just wanted to move.
6. The landlord attempted a welfare check on the resident but there was no answer. It noted that a 1 bedroom property had become available but it was unsuitable as she required 2 bedrooms. It noted that it would revisit the subject of target hardening. It noted that there was a bandstand in the green area where large groups congregated and this contributed to the ASB.
The police wrote to the landlord on 15 October 2021 and advised that they continued to receive reports of disturbances from the resident, but they were unable to identify any of the youths and were struggling to take any positive action in relation to the reports. The police further said that rehousing to another location would resolve the issues.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s case on 18 October 2021 and noted that more input was needed from the police. It said the caseworker should:
1. Ask when they were patrolling the area to break up the groups of youths.
2. Enquire about a community safety partnership meeting (multi agency meeting and organise a door knock with police.
3. Refer the resident to victim support.
The police wrote to the landlord on 16 October 2021 and said they responded to another call from the resident the previous day and visited her property. They advised the landlord that:
1. The resident wanted a move but she wanted a property suitable in size due to her son living with her and her disabled grandchild that came to stay regularly.
2. She was constantly harassed by youths in the area and could not leave the house for fear of being pushed into rails and knives brandished at her.
3. She could not let her dog outside to the rear of the property or go for walks or to her allotment for fear of being attacked. She stated that 2 dead rats had been placed into her rear garden with food in their mouths which was why she had to keep her dog indoors.
4. Her anxiety, her sons and her dogs are all being affected due to the stress of the situation.
5. They could not see things improving for the resident until she moved properties, as there was nothing they could do if they could not identify the perpetrators.
6. It offered to try and increase patrols around the area to disrupt any activity but the resident said she did not want the police to attend her address as this caused more issues.
The landlord responded to the police on 18 October 2021 that no properties had become available as yet. It asked the police how often they were patrolling the area. It also asked if they had any community safety meetings or multi agency meetings about the issues on the estate that it could attend to ensure they were all working together. It suggested a door knocking exercise to see if other neighbours would be willing to come forward and provide evidence. It also asked if they received reports from other neighbours.
The police responded on 26 October 2021 that it had nominated the area for its hotspot policing that month to try and get more patrols in the area, but its response team were quite stretched at the time. They said:
1. They would still endeavour to conduct patrols in the area as much as they could.
2. There were no community safety meetings or multi agency meetings at the time. They also advised that from the data available there were no reports from other residents. The landlord responded that they could arrange time for a door knocking exercise.
On 26 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord’s chief executive. She said she would not be ringing the police anymore due to threats from the youths as they could no longer go on the field opposite her home. She said she was thinking of getting a car so she could safely go into the community as she was tired of being locked indoors.
The landlord noted on 28 October 2021 that they contacted the resident who informed them that the police were doing more patrols in the area and this had stopped the groups congregating on the green at the back of her property. However, she was pushed by a youth when she went to the local shops and they threatened her. It noted that the resident felt scared to be in her property, her son’s car was still being damaged and food was still being thrown over her fence.
The landlord noted on 2 November 2021 that it conducted a visit to the resident’s property. It said she asked why she had not been offered a 3 bedroom property yet even though some had been advertised for letting. It noted that the resident was listed as requiring a 2 bedroom property. It noted that the resident was said that she was living with her son and was a carer for her grandson who has autism. It agreed in its internal discussions to contact the allocations team to discuss the case.
The landlord tried to contact the resident on 9 November 2021 to discuss her email. It notified its communications team that the resident had contacted the press.
The landlord noted on 11 November 2021 that the resident was unhappy that it had only just updated her application to a 3 bed need. It explained that it had no evidence regarding her grandson and it was not aware that her son intended to move in with her as he was not registered to be living at the property.
On 18 November 2021, the landlord noted that a property had become available for viewing. It wrote to the resident about a provisional offer of accommodation and invited her to view it on 19 November 2021. It noted that an affordability check needed to be completed. It said that it was hopeful this would be a suitable property as it was ready to let and should be a quick move.
The landlord’s property inspection report noted that there were repairs pending to the living room floor to level it, that the fence needed repairs pending the removal of ivy by a neighbour. It noted defective sealant around the bath and 2 holes in the front door. It said the defect was missed at its empty homes stage.
The landlord noted on 23 November 2021 that the resident was concerned about the costs associated with the move and the 2 weeks rent being requested upfront. It noted that she was disappointed that there was no gas pipe installed for the cooker in the new property and that she appeared to be putting off the offer of a move. It said it had made a referral to its customer support team to explore support with any of the costs to facilitate the move (including removal costs).
Between 23 and 24 November 2021, the landlord’s lettings team noted it could not proceed with the move if the resident did not provide the required paperwork. The landlord noted that the resident was finding it difficult to provide the paperwork requested and would rather carry on staying at the current property. The landlord advised the resident that if she refused the offer, she would not be offered another property and would lose the priority banding.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had accepted the new property and had received the keys on that day. It noted that the resident raised various issues why she could not move and further said that it had waived the upfront 2 weeks rent payment.
The resident complained to the landlord on 6 December 2021 stating:
1. there were many problems with the property
2. if she did not accept the property she would be taken off priority banding
3. she was given a week to move in with no time to sort anything out
4. no cooker as hers was gas and no time to sort out carpets
5. she was told she owed money on the property
6. She was unfairly treated as an elderly person.
The landlord noted on 9 December 2021 that it spoke to the resident about her complaint and advised her that it would respond within 10 working days. Following its discussion with the resident it noted she was unhappy that:
1. It took 5 months for the landlord to offer her alternative accommodation.
2. She had 2 bedrooms but she needed 3 as she had her grandson.
3. She had not been able to move to the new property due to repairs needed.
4. She had incurred extra costs, rent on 2 properties and fuel as she had to make multiple trips and paid for bills on both properties.
The landlord noted in its internal emails on 9 December 2021 that:
1. It had made a referral for financial assistance with the move. Its customer support team tried to contact her but they were unable to reach her to discuss financial assistance, housing benefit and change of address.
2. It said it also made other allowances to assist the resident such as waiving the 2 weeks rent, disregarding missing paperwork (such as proof of change of name) to avoid any delays on the offer. It decided to proceed as she was a longtime resident.
3. It noted issues had been found with the flooring but these had not been raised with its lettings team. It said these would need to be to be looked into by its empty homes team who confirmed the property was ready to let.
4. The works at the new property were raised on 3 December 2021 and voids attended on 6 December 2021 completed some works on the same day and moved other work round to accommodate the resident.
On 13 December 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she was not happy with the property offered. She said everything was wet and the house smelled of damp. She said the toilet did not work and when reported she was told she would have to wait for the repairs. She said she would rather return to her previous property as she did not have money left for shopping due to costs incurred.
On 13 December 2021, the landlord communicated internally about the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It had booked a surveyor to attend the next day.
2. It was unsure of the extent of the issues but it was signed off by its voids to let so it would have met the re-let standard.
3. She had reported issues with a downstairs window and issues with heating and damp.
4. The keys to the previous property were due back in but there were some of the resident’s items which her son was still moving.
The landlord noted on 15 December 2021 that it completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 14 December 2021. It said:
1. The resident was unhappy that the kitchen floor was not levelled. It advised the resident that the property had movement due to age and would find most floorings were not perfectly levelled. It advised that the condition met its repair standard as there were no trip hazards. It further advised that if the tiles or floor started to lift it would deal with it at that point.
2. The resident felt it was pointless going through anything else as it was not being helpful but it advised that it carry out any necessary repairs.
3. The resident advised that it was not fair that her son had to pay for parts to repair the toilet. The landlord responded that they were signposted to the repairs team but they made the choice to repair the toilet at their own expense. The resident did not agree and stated that he was advised it could take 10 days to complete the repair which was why he completed it himself. It advised the resident about its service level agreement and expectation.
4. It agreed that the bath seal needed repairs and would book its voids team back in for repairs.
5. The resident stated she was not happy with the water pressure and the age of the boiler system as it was a tank and she had a combination boiler at her previous property. She complained that the water took a long time to heat up and she had to run the bath for half an hour to get it full. The surveyor advised that this was a personal preference and the system was functioning, just not to the previous standard of what she was used to.
6. It reminded the resident that the keys to her previous home should have been returned by 13 December 2021. The resident advised that due to the issues with the floors and how long it took to get the gas and electric turned on this had set them back 3 days so they had not finished moving all the items out of the property.
7. The landlord advised her that she would continue to accrue the weekly rent until the keys were handed back. It considered if there was an option of taking a week’s rent off as a gesture of good will to stop the complaint from escalating. It said this would leave the resident 1 week’s additional rent to pay on the old address.
8. It concluded that repairs would be arranged to seal the bath and fill holes in the front door within 24 hours.
It noted in an internal email dated 14 January 2022 that its customer support team had been trying to contact the resident since December 2021 to try and assist with additional costs (removal costs, running gas and electricity at both properties and paying rent on both properties), but they had not been able to reach her. It said they wrote to her and asked her to get in contact. It further said in terms of the condition of the property, repairs were needed but this could be the case with management moves but that it met its empty homes standard.
The landlord discussed in an internal email on 30 January 2022 that the resident had handed back the keys to her old property and it had agreed to clear some of the goods left and waive a further weeks rent. It acknowledged that the resident had some initial issues with getting the gas and electric sorted and levelling the floor but it was uncertain if this would have delayed her moving all her items to the new property.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 30 January 2022. It responded that:
1. It followed all of its procedures in the investigation of the ASB report and said most of the reports made were criminal matters, which needed to be dealt with by the police.
2. With regards to the management move transfer, it met its commitment and offered a new property within the expected timeframes.
3. It would not make a further offer if the new home was refused without a valid reason as it felt the new property was a reasonable offer and suited her accommodation needs. It agreed there were several maintenance issues discovered when she started to move in and it apologised for any distress this may have caused her. It said as management moves are offered with an element of urgency; maintenance may be required whilst residents moved in.
4. In response to her concerns about financial issues experienced during the transfer, its customer support team had been unable to contact her by telephone and had sent her a letter asking for her to get in touch. It said the team are there to help improve her finances and her ability to pay for her home.
5. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £20 for the inconvenience.
On 14 February 2022, the resident told the landlord in an email that she was not happy with its response. She said she could have been seriously hurt due to the landlord’s delay in moving her from the property. She said the new home offered did not meet her needs as her daughter could not visit in her mobility scooter, and her grandson could not walk on the grass verge due to his mobility issues.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 15 February 2022. It said it would respond within 20 working days.
On 16 March 2022, the landlord discussed the inspection completed on 14 December 2021 in light of the issues raised by the resident. It said that:
1. The resident complained there was no fence around the boundary of the gardens and the garden was full of debris from before she moved in. It asked if the issues were brought up during its inspection on 14 December 2021 and if its empty homes team identified any issues.
2. It said the resident advised that a new boiler would be installed and asked if the boiler could be moved downstairs (currently in a bedroom) as requested by the resident.
3. It noted that there was no mention of floor issues until the resident had moved in as it was not picked up by its voids team.
On 4 April 2022, the resident chased up the progress of her stage 2 complaint. She advised that she would contact this Service as she was previously advised that it had 20 working days to respond to the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 6 April 2022. It reiterated its response regarding the ASB and management move. It also said:
1. It acknowledged as time elapses further repairs may be required after a resident has moved in. It said it was possible that some issues may be required during inspections but it adhered to the decent homes standard and all the items within the standard were marked as completed.
2. Issues identified would not have prevented her from moving in. Any costs incurred in moving her personal items were the resident’s personal expenses as it tried to support her as best as it could with regards to the overlap in the rent and offered ongoing support. It increased its offer of goodwill gesture to £40 due to the delay in responding to the complaint.
On 7 April 2022, the resident declined the offer of compensation.
The resident wrote to this Service on 20 May 2022 and said she had was not happy with the offer of accommodation because there was no gas point for her cooker, the garden was not secure, overgrown hedges which she was allergic to and the toilet cistern would not flush. She said there was a leak from under the bath into the kitchen, her son bought new taps and fixed the leak, there were screws sticking out of the ceiling that had been put into the stair boards, paper coming off the wall, no parking, home not suitable as her grandchild was not able to visit.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

be fair
put things right
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 handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and her request for a housing transfer.

In cases relating to ASB, it is important to clarify that this Service’s role is not to ascertain whether ASB occurred or not, or who is responsible, but to determine whether the landlord responded to reports of ASB received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
It is evident from the information seen by this Service that the resident was traumatised by the experiences described to the landlord and felt unsafe in the property. The landlord was empathetic, acknowledged that the resident was vulnerable and actively sought to rehouse her. It liaised with the police within a week of receiving the reports from the resident and they advised that they provide visibility in the area as a deterrent. This appeared to have temporarily reduced the impact as she reported that her property was no longer being targeted for a period. This shows that it assessed any risks to the resident at an early stage in line with its policy and sought a victim centred approach. Whilst the landlord was unable to gain the necessary report from the police, that it required to refer the resident for priority or emergency rehousing, it sought alternative means of progressing the application. This shows that it took the resident’s reports seriously.
It is noted that the landlord offered target hardening on 14 October 2021 and a referral to victim support on 18 October 2021. These actions should have been taken sooner given that she reported on 20 September 2021 that her son’s tyres were being damaged and her report on 4 October 2021, that she was being pushed into hedges when she was out of the property. This Service would expect the landlord to have reassessed the level of risk at these stages in the case and review its support to the resident. Had this been offered sooner, it would have been able to support the resident to manage the impact of the ASB upon her in a more effective way. We have seen that the landlord learnt from this error at a later stage in the case.
The management form completed by the landlord on 17 September 2021 noted that the property was located in an area with high crime rates due to drug dealing and county lines. It acknowledged that the resident was elderly and vulnerable and that she urgently needed to be rehoused. Although the landlord’s tenancy conditions are clear in that it would not tolerate ASB and illegal activities such as threatening, menacing, or abusive behaviour from tenants within its neighbourhood, its ASB policy or procedure does not outline actions or steps that it would take to tackle such nuisance and how it would deal with youths or those that can not be identified as perpetrators. It would however require corroborative evidence to support taking action, but the police had not been able to identify any perpetrators. Furthermore, it said it had not received reports from other resident’s regarding similar concerns or reports.
Nevertheless, due to further concerns and escalating incidents reported by the resident, it conducted a joint visit with the police and it asked them for an update on actions being taken and how often it was patrolling the area. It also asked for a community safety meeting partnership with the police to ensure they were working in partnership to tackle the problem on the estate. This was an appropriate step to take and in line with its ASB policy and procedure to work collaboratively with external agencies to resolve ASB. It also discussed conducting a door knocking exercise with the police in light of the concerns raised by the resident that a neighbour might be linked to the drug activities, but it is not clear if this action was completed. However, the evidence shows that it questioned the neighbour mentioned by the resident but they denied the allegation. This action was appropriate and it demonstrates that it took matters seriously and actively listened to the resident. Whilst it was appropriate and reasonable that the landlord worked in partnership with the police, there was at times a passing of the resident between the 2 services, with no clear action plan. It would have been more proactive for it work with external agencies to meet and agree clear and agreed actions for each agency and explain this to the resident to manage expectations and support her through this process.
Between 4 October and 14 October 2021, the resident became increasingly concerned about her safety due to reports made to the landlord that she was being pushed into railings. She felt the use of her CCTV cameras were making the situation worse and decided that it was safer to stay indoors as she was being targeted in the streets. It is noted that the landlord continually advised her that it had no suitable properties available, but it has not evidenced that it considered the possibility of a temporary move to alleviate her concerns. It also failed to consider it when her son requested it. We would expect the landlord to reassess the level of risk due to the escalation in the behaviour and have worked with its external partners to explore alternative accommodation in the interim. This was unreasonable.
The police also advised the landlord on 16 October 2021 that the resident required a move, as they could not identify the perpetrators and it was not likely that things would improve for her. Failing to explore alternative means of lessening the impact of the ASB on the resident would have caused her distress. We have noted throughout the life of this case that she informed the landlord that the continued issues had caused her and her family severe distress and isolated her from accessing the community and seeing her grandson whom she cared for.
The evidence also shows that the landlord was unaware of the size of the property requested by the resident and this was only determined when she reported on 2 November 2021 that she was not considered for a 3 bedroom property that was available on its website. She mentioned in her discussion with the landlord on 11 November 2021 that it should have been aware of her housing needs from the beginning. It learned from this and updated her application to reflect the size of the property she said she needed. However, there was a period of 7 weeks where the landlord was incorrectly searching for a 2 bedroom property rather than the 3 bedroom property she requested. The landlord did not recognise this as an error nor did it apologise for it in its response. This was unreasonable and would have caused the resident further distress due to missed opportunities to find her a new home. The resident was subsequently made an offer of a 3 bedroom property on 19 November 2021 which she accepted.
Overall, the landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s ASB report in accordance with its policy. Whilst this Service has not seen a copy of its risk assessment, it noted that it completed one and assessed it as high risk in accordance with its ASB policy. It worked collaboratively with the police, arranged joint visits to the resident’s and placed her on the high priority list for a housing transfer. This was a proportionate step given the severity and impact of the ASB reported by the resident. It arranged the repair of the streetlight to improve visibility outside the resident’s property which shows that it took her concerns seriously. It regularly liaised with the resident and her son to keep her updated and to ensure her wellbeing.
However, it missed an opportunity to explore alternative interim accommodation for the resident and it failed to learn from this error when her son requested it on 14 October 2021. It took another month after this before it was able to secure accommodation for her (19 November 2021). The resident reported ASB to the landlord for a period of 3 months, during which she said her quality of living was severely impacted. It should have considered other options of interim housing, as it was apparent that the actions taken did not mitigate the risk. The resident pointed this out in her email to the landlord on 14 February 2022, that the delay in rehousing her could have caused her serious harm. In light of the above, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour and her request for a housing transfer.

The resident’s concerns that the property did not meet her housing needs.

The management form completed by the landlord on 17 September 2021 noted that as a result of the ASB being reported, the resident was no longer able to care for her grandson, who had multiple needs, as his parents did not feel it was safe for him. On the same day, the resident informed the landlord that she would like any property, within her areas of preference, as long as she would be able to refuse it if it was unsuitable for any reason. The landlord agreed to award an additional room for the resident’s grandchild, so it would have been appropriate to conduct a housing needs assessment in accordance with its policy, to ensure she was offered a suitable property.
Since accepting the property, the resident had complained that the new home offered did not meet her needs or her grandson’s. The landlord has not evidenced that it took account of the prospective household member’s vulnerabilities at the time of the offer. It should have given her the opportunity to outline any additional needs of any vulnerable household members and appropriately assess the condition of the property and risk assess any issues that may impact the resident’s grandchild’s ability to access the home freely. This is a significant failing which would have caused the resident distress and frustration. It did not learn from this throughout the life of the case, even though the resident repeatedly emphasised the importance of having her grandchild at the property in numerous contacts with the landlord. Whilst its housing allocations policy states that it is required to take account of prospective tenant’s housing needs it has not acted in accordance with the policy.
The management move confirmation letter sent to the resident on 22 September 2021 clearly advised it would only make one offer and that the priority transfer may be removed if the resident refused the offer. We have seen from the landlord’s internal communications that the resident felt the property was unsuitable for her, but it did not outline the reasons put forward and its response regarding her concerns. Whilst there is provision in its housing allocations policy to review any decision made regarding property allocations, the evidence indicates the resident was not made aware of this information and she later complained that she was forced to accept the property. Its policy is also not clear on the grounds under which a refusal of an offer of accommodation could be accepted. It was unreasonable that this information was not made available to the resident prior to and at the time of the offer as it could have provided more clarity on her options.
Overall, the landlord failed to take account of any vulnerabilities in the resident’s household to ensure that any properties offered met her needs. Whilst it made her aware that she would only be made one offer under the management move, it should have clearly outlined the conditions under which a resident may refuse a property and informed her that any decisions regarding allocations may be subject to a review. It initially assessed the resident as needing 2 bedrooms and corrected this following objections raised by her on 2 November 2021. However, it missed another opportunity to take into account any further needs of her household members even after it noted on 11 November 2021 that it did not have any information regarding her grandchild. This would have caused the resident further distress and frustration. In light of the above, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that the property offered did not meet her household’s needs.

The resident’s concerns about the costs associated with the move.

Being an elderly resident, the landlord should have assessed whether reasonable adjustments needed to be made to facilitate her transfer to another property. The landlord noted in its responses to the resident that there is usually a sense of urgency with a move under a management transfer. Its policy notes that a managed move remains in place for 12 weeks, so whilst it was positive that support services were identified, this was late in the process and could have identified any concerns such as affordability of moving sooner, so that measures could have been put in place to ensure that the resident was ready to move when a property was identified.
In light of this, we would have expected to see that any support services required around moving would have been discussed and agreed and ready to action when the move occurred. This said, in response to the resident’s concerns about affordability and additional costs incurred, it made a referral to the relevant team to explore ways she could be supported financially with the move. This was an appropriate step to take and shows that it sought ways to ease any financial strain on the resident as a result of the home move.
We have seen from its internal correspondence on 9 December 2021, that its customer support team tried to contact the resident and later wrote to her in January 2022 to discuss any financial assistance she might need. It said the resident did not respond or engage with the team. Nevertheless, it listened to the resident’s concerns about the cost of running 2 properties whilst she was still in the process of moving out her belongings from her previous address. It waived the additional week’s rent that would have accrued on the previous property due to the delay in handing back the keys. In light of the above, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the costs associated with the move.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property upon letting.

After the resident accepted the property, she complained that there were many problems with repairs and the property condition. The landlord responded that the condition met its empty home standards, but the policy does not elaborate or provide detailed information about the standards and what a new tenant should expect when they move into their new home. This does not show openness and transparency.
The resident complained in her email to the landlord on 6 December 2021 that there were many issues within the property and later informed it that she had not been able to move in as a result. She informed the landlord on 13 December 2021 that the house smelt of damp, there was a problem with a window, issues with heating and the toilet did not work but we have not seen records of these report in its repairs log. In its internal email dated 9 December 2021, the landlord said that works at the new property were attended on 6 December 2021, yet there are no records of the works in its repairs log so we have not been able to determine what repairs were carried out. This Service would expect the landlord to keep clear and accurate records of any repairs reported by the resident, including records of inspections and any works agreed.
The landlord conducted an inspection of the property on 14 December 2021, in response to the resident’s concerns and agreed to arrange repairs to the door and bathroom. It also committed to resolving any issues identified that it was responsible for. However, the survey report did not address the resident’s concern about damp. Its earlier inspection on 18 November 2021 noted that repairs were pending to the fence, but this was also not revisited during its inspection. It is unclear if the resident raised these concerns during the visit, but this Service would expect it to have addressed her concerns about damp and the pending works to the fence. It also remains unclear from the evidence seen if all of these issues have now been resolved.
The landlord acknowledged in its internal correspondence dated 14 January 2022 that repairs were needed, that were missed during its voids inspection, but it was satisfied that the property met letting standards. It did not however elaborate on the extent of works needed. It also reiterated this in its response to the resident, on 30 January 2022. It agreed there were several maintenance issues discovered after she had moved into the property and it apologised for any distress this may have caused. For transparency and clarity, it should have outlined the works completed and any outstanding issues it was yet to resolve in its response to the resident.
In her email to the Ombudsman on 20 May 2022, the resident reported that there were various repairs outstanding. However, we have not been able to determine from the evidence provided by the landlord if some of these were new repairs or repairs that had previously been reported to the landlord before the complaints process was exhausted.
Overall, we have seen that the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns about the difficulties she had experienced with moving into the property. It arranged a survey of the property to identify any outstanding issues and agreed to resolve them. It agreed:
1. To waive 2 weeks’ initial rent payment required at the start of the tenancy.
2. That there were unresolved repairs in the property which needed to be completed after the tenancy had commenced and it apologised for the inconvenience caused.
3. To look into the resident’s request for a combination boiler, as the boiler in the new home was an old system, even though the current boiler was not faulty.
Whilst the Ombudsman welcomes the positive steps taken by the landlord to address the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, it has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the outstanding repairs have been satisfactorily resolved. In light of this, there is evidence of service failure in its handling of the resident’s report about the condition of the property upon letting.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action its staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual customer. The resident’s expressed a dissatisfaction about its handling of her ASB reports on 24 September 2021. She reported that the issue was becoming unbearable, and that the landlord had done nothing to assist her. It responded the same day that it would arrange for the matter to be investigated as a formal complaint. We have noted that the landlord did not respond to the complaint as promised, but rather passed the query to the ASB caseworker to discuss with the resident. It was clear in this case that the resident was complaining about the handling of the ASB being reported and was not making a complaint about ASB. The landlord in failing to recognise this missed an opportunity to have the matter looked at independently by its complaints team.
The resident chased up a response from its complaints team on 5 October 2021 and said she no longer wanted to deal with the ASB caseworker. Instead of investigating the complaint, it again passed ownership to the ASB team to arrange contact with the resident. This was not appropriate and would have caused the resident some frustration and it appeared not to be listening actively to her concerns.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 6 December 2021. It acknowledged the complaint on 9 December 2021, and responded on 30 January 2022. It took 6 weeks to respond to the complaint which fell far outside of the 10 working days stipulated in its complaints policy. It acknowledged this delay in its response and offered £20 for any inconvenience. This Service deems this insufficient.
The landlord did not learn from its earlier mistakes as the stage 2 response was not sent within 20 working days in adherence to its complaints policy. The resident submitted the complaint on 14 February 2022 but it did not respond until 6 April 2022 (over 6 weeks). It also failed to provide a full response to the resident’s complaint as it omitted to advise on liability for the repairs to her garden fence and debris in the garden. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and advised the resident that it had increased its offer of compensation to £40 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
Its compensation policy notes that any remedy offered will reflect the extent of failures and the level of detriment caused as a result. It would offer up to £250 where the issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the resident. It is evident that the delays experienced caused the resident some distress, frustration and time and trouble and its offer of £40 is not proportionate. In light of the above, there was maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and her request for a housing transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that the property did not meet her housing needs.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about costs associated with the move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the condition of the property upon letting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s ASB reports and it established contact with the police within a reasonable period of time to support with the investigation. It acknowledged earlier on in the case that she needed a housing transfer and whilst it deemed the information provided by the police insufficient, it obtained a doctor’s letter from the resident to support the management move application. It kept in regular contact with the resident and conducted welfare visits. However, it failed to explore interim or emergency accommodation for the resident when the reports escalated and she raised concerns for her safety. It offered support services and target hardening which we would expect to see but not at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord failed to assess the housing needs of the resident’s household members even though the resident repeatedly made it aware that her grandchild was disabled. It missed various opportunities put this right especially when it agreed that the resident’s grandchild could be awarded a bedroom and it did not address throughout the life of the case.
The landlord did not initially assess whether reasonable adjustments needed to be made to assist the resident with her move prior to an offer being made. It recovered from this when the resident voiced her concerns and referred to the relevant teams to assess any financial support it could offer her. It also agreed to waive one weeks’ additional rent to give her more time vacate her previous property.
The landlord acknowledged that there were outstanding repairs in the property that were missed during the voids inspection. It acknowledged this in its responses and assured the resident that it would address them. It waived 2 weeks rent which all prospective tenants were obliged to pay as redress of any detriment caused to the resident. However, it failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the outstanding repairs in the property have been resolved.
The landlord failed to provide a formal response to the resident’s initial complaint. It’s responses to the stage one complaint was late. It apologised and offered compensation but it did not learn from this as the stage 2 response was also delayed. The response did not fully address all the issues raised by the resident. Whilst it apologised for the delays, its offer of compensation did not reflect the level of detriment to the resident.

Orders

The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total sum of £850 broken down as:
  1. £100 for the frustration and distress to the resident due to its handling of the ASB reports.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident due to the failings identified in its handling of her concerns that the property did not meet her housing needs.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience to the resident due to its handling of her concerns about the condition of the property upon letting.
  4. £300 for the frustration and time and trouble to the resident due to the failings identified in its complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to discuss any additional needs of any vulnerable household members and explore any adjustments that may be needed to help them to access the home freely.
4. Ensure that its voids team produce reports that reflect the actual condition of its empty properties, detailing any minor or major repairs before signing them off as ready to let.
5. Contact the resident to discuss any outstanding repairs in the property including her concerns about damp. It should agree an action plan for any repairs that may be required and agree timescales for completion with the resident.
6. Share this decision with the relevant staff who handle complaints and emphasise the importance of adhering to its internal policies.

Recommendations

The landlord should look at its policy position and review its steps when investigating matters that involve gang and youth or youth intimidation or violence where perpetrators are not able to be identified.
It should consider reviewing its housing allocations policy with a view to providing more clarity around property refusals. It should ensure that any letters of accommodation sent to residents outline the next steps should they choose to refuse it.
Its empty homes policy should be reviewed to provide more information about the minimum condition required to relet a property.