The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited (202301207)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301207

The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited

11 July 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 repair to the resident’s fence.
2. Reports of anti-social behaviour.
3. The residents’ request for adaptations to their bathroom.
4. The residents’ housing transfer application.

Background

The residents were joint assured tenants of the property, which is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. One of the residents has a physical disability affecting his mobility, which the landlord was aware of. For ease of reference, both residents are referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident has complained to the landlord about various types of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from other residents of their block since at least 2005. They have reported various issues including noise disturbance, the misuse of the communal garden and internal communal areas of the residents’ building, improper waste disposal, and misuse of the communal front entrance door.
The landlord has an internal transfer list for residents seeking rehousing. In 2020 it changed the eligibility criteria for its rehousing allocations policy. All existing applicants were told to resubmit their rehousing applications. The residents resubmitted their application for rehousing. On 31 November 2020, the landlord told the residents they were not eligible for its rehousing transfer list as there were arrears on their rent account.
The landlord wrote to the resident asking for more information to support their application for rehousing on 11 December 2020. The residents provided this.
On 25 March 2022, a political party wrote to the landlord on behalf of the residents. It said that the resident was having difficulty using the bath in the property due to his disability, and the residents were being affected by noise nuisance and the smell of illegal substances in their home.
The resident contacted their local councillor for support, and they wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 1 June 2022, explaining that the resident was reporting ASB caused by neighbours. The landlord told the councillor it would send the resident a full response by 16 June 2022. As the resident had not received a response from the landlord, the councillor sent the landlord at least 5 further emails on their behalf in July and August 2022.
On 20 June 2022 the resident said they reported that their fence needed to be repaired.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord visited the resident at home. The resident said it told them:
1. It would send a letter to residents in the block about the ASB they had reported.
2. they could not be rehoused as she was adequately housed, and there were arrears on their rent account.
3. It would follow up their fence repair.
The resident told the Ombudsman she spoke to the landlord about her concerns at a community meeting. As a result, it visited her at home on 21 September 2022. The landlord emailed the resident after the meeting, saying:
1. They should contact her local authority for an occupational therapy assessment. If the occupational therapist recommended adaptation to the resident’s bathroom, the landlord would work with the local authority to install it.
2. An appointment had been booked to repair the resident’s fence.
3. It suggested mediation between the households in the resident’s building. It would contact them to discuss how it would arrange this.
4. It had overlooked correspondence sent on their behalf by a local councillor. It was meeting with him to ensure it had identified any outstanding issues.
The landlord visited the resident at home on 28 October 2022 to discuss their rehousing application and the ASB they were reporting. The resident said the landlord agreed to write to residents of the block about the ASB. On 22 November 2022 the landlord sent all residents in the residents’ block a letter about keeping the communal garden tidy and free from children’s toys.
The resident’s councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 18 January 2023. they said that the resident wanted to make a formal complaint because:
1. They had reported ASB to the landlord over the past 5 years. The landlord had agreed to send a block letter to residents on 28 October 2022, but it did not do this, although they had been to the landlord’s office to follow this up.
2. They had asked for their bathroom to be adapted, but it had not been.
3. They had asked the landlord to repair their fence. The repair was booked in, but this had taken too long.
4. The landlord had refused the residents’ housing application due to rent arrears. It told them it could put them on its rehousing list when the arrears were paid off, but it had not contacted them about this.
5. The resident would like to meet face-to-face with the landlord. The councillor would attend the meeting.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 23 January 2021. It said:
1. The resident’s rehousing application was incorrectly refused on the grounds of rent arrears. The landlord had failed to consider that the resident’s rent was partly paid by housing benefit. At the time the application was refused, the rent arrears were not high enough to prevent them from joining the landlord’s housing register.
2. It had considered the resident’s medical needs, but as the residents’ property was suitable for adaptation, the landlord assessed that they did not need to be rehoused. It recommended they approached their GP for an occupational therapy referral.
3. It summarised the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It would continue to work to resolve the resident’s issues.
The residents asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 3 February 2023. They said:
1. They wanted to meet with the landlord face-to-face. Their local councillor would attend the meeting.
2. As an incorrect decision was made to reject their rehousing application, it should be reinstated and backdated.
3. The landlord told them not to include the ASB they were experiencing on their housing application.
4. They had spoken to the occupational therapy team, but it would not adapt the property as it was too expensive.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case. It repaired the resident’s fence on 3 March 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 16 March 2023. It did not uphold the residents’ complaint, saying:
1. Its housing allocations policy only allowed residents to join the landlord’s waiting list if they had a ‘housing need’, like a medical need for adaptations. The resident’s property was suitable for adaptations, so they were not in housing need.
2. It reiterated its further advice about seeking an occupational therapy assessment.
3. It would only move residents due to ASB in exceptional circumstances.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to consider their complaint at the 3rd stage of its complaints process. It reviewed the complaint at a panel meeting on 23 March 2023. It sent the resident an outcome letter on 4 April 2023. It said reiterated its earlier position, saying in addition:
1. The residents could consider moving to older person’s accommodation.
2. Occupational therapy referrals were still happening in the usual way.
3. The ASB the resident was experiencing did not warrant a discretionary move.
4. Responses to the resident’s ASB concerns had been inadequate. The landlord would monitor the block going forward to ensure it was kept clear.
5. The communal carpets would be replaced by May 2023.
The residents were unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. They felt that the landlord’s handling of their ASB reports was inadequate, and this had long term consequences on their wellbeing and mental health.
The resident sought rehousing through their local authority and has since been rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of their concerns had a long-term impact on their wellbeing and mental health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the wellbeing and mental health of the resident and their family. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord.
While the resident has reported ASB over many years, the Ombudsman cannot investigate all of the reports made. According to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we can only consider complaints that were brought to were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, usually 12 months prior to a formal complaint being raised to the landlord. As such, the Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB from March 2022 onwards. Older reports of ASB have been included in this report for context only and have not formed part of the Ombudsman’s assessment.

Reports of anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s ASB policy uses the Housing Act 1996 definition of anti-social behaviour, which is “Any conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, which directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management functions of a landlord”, and “any conduct which consists of or involves using or threatening to use housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord for unlawful purposes”.
The landlord’s ASB policy describes specific behaviours that it considers to be ASB, including unkempt gardens, inappropriate disposal of rubbish, and failing to control children to behave in an acceptable way. As the residents recorded ASB that included drug use in the building, items being left in the communal areas of the building and the garden, and behaviour from children that included foul language and a child riding a motorbike in the communal garden, many of the residents’ reports meet the landlord’s ASB policy definition of ASB.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of ASB was inadequate:
1. Its record keeping was poor.
2. It did not always follow its ASB policy.
3. It did not take all of the actions available to it to resolve the issues the resident was reporting.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our website, says that records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. It says records should be clear, specific, and unambiguous and include all relevant information. They should be clear about who did what, and when.
However, the landlord has limited records of the residents’ reports of ASB. In the time period considered by this investigation, the landlord’s records indicate it did not open an ASB case until November 2022, despite having the residents’ earlier reports. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have opened a case as soon as it received correspondence about the issues in March 2022. This would have enabled it to monitor the case and progress it in a timely manner.
The ASB case was closed in February 2023. When the landlord closed the ASB case, it recorded that the issue was unresolved. Although it said it had not received any further reports, it wrote that it intended to take further action. There is no evidence it opened another type of case to monitor the outstanding actions. It was not reasonable of the landlord to close the case when there were outstanding actions on the case, as this reduced its oversight and monitoring of the case.
The landlord did not provide this Service with any statements it had taken from the residents, copies of reports of nuisance she made, and it has very few contemporaneous notes, despite meeting with the residents at home on at least 3 occasions and speaking to them by phone. The landlord’s scant records appeared to cause confusion in its handling of the case. For example, in internal emails the landlord’s discussion of the case focused on the misuse of communal areas and the communal garden. There is no evidence it investigated the residents’ reports of noise disturbance.
Cumulatively, these record keeping failures may have led to frustration for the resident, who felt the landlord was not taking their concerns seriously. In order to improve its record keeping practices, the landlord may wish to consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, unless it has already done so.
There were several examples of the landlord failing to follow its ASB policy. For example:
1. The landlord commits to making an action plan with the resident, listing agreed actions, and stating who will do each action, when. While the landlord’s records indicate an action plan was completed, there is no information about any actions that were agreed, or record that a copy of the action plan was provided to the resident.
2. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will manage the complainant’s expectations as to “what can and cannot be done to tackle the type of ASB reported and discuss whether the behaviour reported would be considered anti-social.” There is no evidence that it did this. Some of the incidents recorded by the resident may not have met the landlord’s definition of anti-social behaviour. For example, the landlord’s policy said that it would not consider reports about children playing in areas where they would be expected to play to be ASB. Some of the resident’s concerns were about children playing in the communal gardens. If the landlord had given specific examples of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, this may have managed the residents’ expectations.
3. The landlord commits to telling residents when it closes their ASB case. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident when it closed their case.
4. The landlord says it will keep in contact with the resident, ensuring its communication is consistent and effective. However, there were large gaps in the landlord’s contact with the resident. For example, there were at least 3 periods of time where there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident about their ASB concerns for 2 months.
The resident asked to meet with the landlord face-to-face with their local councillor as part of the complaints process. There is no evidence the landlord arranged this meeting, and it did not respond to the resident’s request in its complaints process. This was a missed opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.
To resolve the issues reported by the resident, the landlord initially sent a letter to all residents of the block and asked them to keep the communal garden clear. While this was a reasonable first step to address the issues, the landlord did not do this until November 2022, almost 5 months after the resident’s records first indicate it agreed to do so, and 8 months after they reported the ASB to the landlord. This was an unacceptable delay that may have led to the resident feeling they were not being taken seriously.
The landlord visited the resident again 2 months later and noted that there were many items in the communal areas. In an internal email it said the issues appeared to be longstanding, and the condition of the communal carpet was very poor. On that date it spoke to 4 of the 6 residents living in the building. While this was a reasonable action, the landlord should have done this sooner. After the landlord had spoken to the residents of the building, it should have arranged a visit to ensure the issue was resolved. There is no evidence it did so, or that it took any other action to monitor or resolve the ASB reported by the resident until they moved out of the property. This was not appropriate and will have further undermined the landlord-tenant relationship.
In the landlord’s ASB policy it says it will consider a wide range of methods to resolve ASB, including preventative, supportive, and enforcement methods. However, in this case the landlord had several options available to it to tackle the ASB that it either failed to consider, or failed to carry out:
1. The landlord suggested mediation with the resident’s neighbours. Mediation was a reasonable suggestion as it can be an effective tool to help neighbours come to a workable compromise. However, there was no evidence the landlord progressed this suggestion, which was inappropriate.
2. The resident had reported noise nuisance from neighbouring properties. Many landlords have access to noise recording machines or mobile phone applications like “the noise app”. These tools can be an effective way to collect evidence to support a resident’s case. However, there is no evidence the landlord considered this, or took any other action to progress the resident’s concerns about noise disturbance. This will have led to the resident feeling their reports had been ignored.
3. The landlord’s internal records suggest it had no process for removing items left in a communal area by residents. Items left in communal areas of buildings can pose a significant fire risk. Landlords need to have adequate policies and procedures in place to address this. For example, some landlords have “clear corridors” policies that allow them to legally remove items left in communal areas, and others will consider issuing TORT notices (a legal notice which can be attached to an item that is believed to have been abandoned) on individual items. The landlord should consider implementing a more robust policy for dealing with items left in communal areas.
4. The landlord’s records also indicate it was considering a project to tackle issues with items left in communal areas across more than one building. It told the resident it was doing this. However, there is no evidence the landlord progressed this. The landlord’s failure to do what it said it would do will have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord.
5. The resident was aware of the identities of specific neighbours responsible for ASB incidents. As such it would have been reasonable for the landlord to interview the identified neighbours formally, but there is no evidence it did so.
6. The landlord could have considered asking residents of the block to sign a good neighbour agreement. Good neighbour agreements aim to promote positive behaviour in communities but can also be used by landlords to show that they have responded to ASB proportionately if they feel legal tenancy enforcement action is needed later.
The failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour amount to maladministration. They had a significant detrimental impact to their trust in the landlord and caused them frustration and inconvenience. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 in compensation for the impact its failures on them. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says award in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord had a significant impact on the resident/s. The landlord is also ordered to apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The resident’s transfer application

The landlord has an internal housing transfer list, which enables eligible residents of its properties to move within its housing stock. Under its allocations policy, existing tenants of the landlord are only able to join its waiting list if they have a “housing need” which includes overcrowding, under-occupation, needing a ground floor or adapted property for medical reasons, or experiencing anti-social behaviour or domestic abuse. The landlord’s allocations policy also says that residents in arrears of more than twice their weekly rent will be disqualified from the landlord’s housing waiting list.
The landlord’s policy was implemented in August 2019, and last amended in May 2022. It says that due to significant changes in its policy, all applicants were required to reapply for rehousing. However, there is no document control page to show the amendments that were made, or on what date. It is best practice for landlords to have a clear record of any changes made to their policy, and when. The landlord should consider how it records changes to its policies in future.
After changes to the landlord’s allocations policy, the residents reapplied for rehousing. The landlord wrote to the residents explaining that their application had not been accepted, as they had arrears on their rent account. The resident disputes receiving this letter. While we do not doubt the resident’s account, with the information available we cannot determine why they did not receive the letter and therefore we cannot say if the landlord was responsible for this.
The landlord later accepted that it had incorrectly assessed the level of arrears on the residents’ rent account. It agreed that, at the point that the resident applied, it should not have refused the resident’s application on this basis. This was appropriate.
However, the landlord’s allocations policy also says that residents without a housing need could not join its housing waiting list. The landlord considered that as the resident’s property was on the ground floor, it was possible to adapt the residents’ bathroom, so they did not have a housing need. Although this will have been disappointing for the resident, this decision aligned with the landlords’ housing allocations policy. However, the landlord could have done more to support the resident to access an occupational therapy assessment so that adaptations could be made. This is discussed later in the report.
The landlord’s communication with the resident about their application was inadequate. This will have been confusing for them. For example:
1. The landlord should have explained that the resident was not eligible to move without a housing need, which it assessed that they did not have, its initial refusal letter, sent on 20 November 2020. It did not, only incorrectly giving the resident’s rent arrears as a reason.
2. After refusing the resident’s application, the landlord sent a further letter asking them for more information to support their housing application. It is unclear if the landlord sent a second letter because resident submitted another application. Sending a second letter will have led them to believe their application was still being considered.
3. The landlord did explain to the resident that they could not move without a housing need during a home visit in July 2022. However, on 21 and 28 September 2022, the resident’s contemporaneous records indicate that the landlord said that the resident could not move due to their rent arrears, but failed to mention that regardless of the arrears it considered them to be adequately housed.
The landlord’s allocations policy says that there are some exceptional circumstances where it can exercise management discretion to consider residents’ housing applications. The resident said that the landlord told them in person it could use its discretion to accept their rehousing application. As the meeting was in person, and no record of it was kept by the landlord, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to confirm what was said in the meeting. However, when the resident raised this in their complaint, the landlord should have confirmed what it said, and whether it would consider using discretion in their case. Its failure to do so may have led to the resident feeling the landlord had not fully considered their concerns.
The landlord said to the resident that it only considered ASB to be a housing need in exceptional circumstances. This is common practice for landlords. Landlords’ policies sometimes allow additional rehousing priority for residents who are at serious risk of physical or emotional harm, for example because of gang violence or domestic abuse. However, the landlord’s allocations policy does not specify what its threshold for moving a resident experiencing ASB is. This may have caused frustration and confusion for the resident. The landlord should consider amending its policy to be more specific about the types of ASB it will consider to be a housing need, and its threshold for rehousing residents in these circumstances. This would increase transparency and accountability around its decision making.
While the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application did not affect its overall decision about the resident’s rehousing, it will have caused them confusion and inconvenience. In addition, while the landlord accepted initial errors in its handling of the case, it failed to identify the other errors discussed by this report. As such, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlords’ handling of the resident’s housing application. It is ordered to pay the resident £100 directly for the avoidable inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where there has been service failure by the landlord and its offer of redress does not fully reflect the detriment caused to the resident.

Adaptation to the residents’ home:

The landlord has an equipment and adaptations policy that outlines its approach to residents’ requests for adaptations in their home. The policy says that the landlord will offer support in accessing relevant services from the local authority, and that the landlord will track and monitor residents’ occupational therapy applications, acting as an advocate for them.
When the resident asked for rehousing due to medical need, the landlord suggested that the resident got an occupational therapy assessment signposted them to the relevant occupational therapy service. This was reasonable, as it aligned with the landlord’s housing allocations policy which said that it would only consider rehousing residents due to medical need where a property was not adaptable. An occupational therapy assessment would be an appropriate first step to decide if adaptations were possible.
The resident contacted the occupational therapy service. They told the Ombudsman and the landlord that the occupational therapy service would not accept their referral. At this point, the landlord should have contacted the occupational therapy team directly, acting as an advocate for the resident. This would have been in line with its allocations policy. The landlord’s failure to do so caused the residents trouble and inconvenience.
Several members of the landlord’s staff gave the resident the same signposting advice, rather than offering any direct support. The landlord made no attempt to contact the occupational therapy service, and there is no evidence it tracked or monitored the resident’s application. This suggests that the landlord’s day-to-day practice does not align with its adaptations and equipment policy. The landlord should consider how it can ensure relevant staff are aware of, and act in line with its policy.
The landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its policy was a service failure which caused inconvenience to the residents. To put things right for the residents, the landlord is ordered to pay them £100 directly. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where a service failure by the landlord has caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble but there may be no permanent impact from the failure. In this case, the resident has now moved so there was no permanent impact from the lack of adaptations, although they did experience distress and inconvenience.

Fence repair

Outside the property, the resident had a small private garden area which was fenced off from the communal garden with a picket fence. The resident told the Ombudsman that the fence was broken by children living in her block.
While there is no legislative timescale for landlords to do repairs, there is an expectation that they are carried out in a “reasonable timescale” It is the Ombudsman’s established view that a reasonable timescale would be 28 days for a routine repair, although we acknowledge that complex repairs may take longer than this. A fence repair is a routine repair. On the landlord’s website, it says it usually completes routine carpentry repairs on the day they are reported, if residents can provide access.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, available on our website, says “it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail”. In this case, the landlord told the Ombudsman that it does not have a record a repair to the resident’s fence. However, there is evidence in the landlord’s records that it was aware that the fence needed to be repaired, and that it arranged to discuss and inspect the repair, so it should have had records of the repair. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate records of all repairs reported by residents going forward.
Although the landlord has no record of the repair, the Ombudsman has seen contemporaneous notes of the repair, which were made by the resident. These show that the resident reported the repair on 20 June 2022, and it was repaired 8.5 months later, on 3 March 2023. This was far outside the landlord’s usual timescale for carpentry repairs. The landlord has not explained why it took so long for it to do the repair, so the Ombudsman considers the delay to be unreasonable. These delays will have caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
In addition, there is evidence that the resident chased the repair with the landlord on several occasions. This will have caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the issue. Although the landlord told the resident that the fence would be repaired on several occasions, for example on the 20 October 2022, the evidence suggests it did not repair the fence when it said it would. This will have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord.
Cumulatively, these failures amount to maladministration. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay them £150 in compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the delay. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where there has been maladministration by the landlord, which has adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The residents’ fence repair.
2. The residents’ reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The residents’ housing application.
2. The residents’ request for an adapted bathroom.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to both the residents in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Directly pay the residents a total of £700 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £350 for the impact of its poor handling of their reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to provide them appropriate support in accessing an occupational therapy assessment.
  3. £100 for the impact of its unclear communication around the residents’ housing application.
  4. £150 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the residents’ fence.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider providing training to ensure relevant staff are aware of, and act in line with, its adaptations and equipment policy.
The landlord should consider adding a document control sheet or similar when it makes changes to its policies and procedures so that it is clear which change have been made, when.
The landlord should consider amending its allocations policy to be more specific about the types of ASB it will consider a housing need, and its threshold for rehousing residents experiencing antisocial behaviour.