Vico Homes Limited (202317286)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317286

Vico Homes Limited

29 April 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s allocation of a property which the resident did not believe was safe, and its response when she moved out.

Background

2. The resident moved into the semi-detached house with her dependent child in October 2022. She had an assured tenancy. The resident has anxiety disorder, which the landlord is aware of.
3. Two months after moving in, the resident reported a few occasions to the landlord when the adjoining neighbour was playing loud music. The resident noticed the music was louder after the neighbour’s partner moved in. On 27 January 2023, the landlord telephoned the neighbour after the resident told it she was playing unbearably loud music. Following this, the resident reported to the landlord and police that her daughter overheard the partner saying he was going to firebomb her house. Due to this they left the property to stay with relatives. She returned later with a friend to collect belongings. She felt intimidated as she asserted the neighbour’s partner was in the window shouting and gesticulating. She stated the neighbour’s partner was overheard saying he was going to drag her and her friend out of the property. The resident reported this to the landlord and police.
4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord and via her MP on 3 February 2023. She explained she did not feel it was safe for her to return to the property. She believed the neighbour’s partner would carry out his threats and the landlord’s offer of additional security measures would not keep them safe. The resident said the landlord told her it had placed a ‘red flag’ on the neighbour’s property to show that it should visit in pairs. She did not believe the property was safe for anyone to live in, especially not a single woman with a child. She did not think the landlord should have advertised the property. The resident said she has crippling anxiety when exposed to dangerous situations. Her GP prescribed medication for this, and her child was receiving counselling from school. She also expressed that she was given conflicting advice about whether she should end her tenancy, and she did not know what to do. She and her child were living apart. The resident had asked to have her band A status reinstated so she can move to another property but was told this was not possible.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 February 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It:
   1. Detailed its response to the resident’s noise nuisance reports.
   2. Confirmed the tenancy agreement stated that the resident needed to use the property as her only and principal home and have an intention to return. As the resident said she was not doing this or planning to, the landlord was satisfied it advised her correctly to consider ending her tenancy and to contact the local council.
   3. Explained it offered the resident the tenancy in line with its policies. It said it could not discuss matters concerning the neighbour due to data protection. However, it recognised the resident said it told her there was a ‘red flag’ on the neighbour’s property and reported this to its governance team.
   4. Confirmed it had offered the resident support and had remained in regular contact with her. It also offered support through the wellbeing team and offered additional security measures. The landlord said the incidents were a criminal matter. As the police were not taking any further action, it was unable to take enforcement action and was satisfied with what it had done.
   5. Could not reinstate the resident’s previous band A status as the local council awarded this. It advised the resident it might be worth considering the local council’s housing needs panel.
   6. Offered mediation, a noise setting exercise, or to install noise recording equipment.
6. The resident escalated her complaint. She did not believe the landlord had understood it. She was complaining that she had been allocated a property she did not feel able to live in, not its noise nuisance case management. There were inconsistencies in the landlord’s response. She said aside its wellbeing team, the landlord had not been in regular contact. The landlord had not kept her informed about addressing the incident. She confirmed she knew the landlord could not discuss the history of the neighbour due to data protection. However, she knew it had a ‘red flag’ on the neighbour’s property which protected its staff but not her. It should have recognised she had anxiety disorder. The resident did not think the additional security measures offered would keep her safe. She did not believe the landlord had correctly assessed the threat posed by the neighbour’s partner and had acted on the report. It offered mediation which she did not think was safe. She said not living in the property was out of her control as she did not believe it was safe to return. The landlord’s reference to her being in breach of her tenancy made her feel it was punishing her for this decision.
7. The landlord provided its final response letter on 28 March 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, however as a resolution it offered the resident a direct let. This is an offer of alternative accommodation. It also:
   1. Said it offered the property in line with the choice-based lettings policy (CBL), as such the resident was deemed to be in a property which suited her needs.
   2. Addressed and rectified the inconsistencies the resident had raised in her escalation. It reviewed its interactions with the resident, and it was in regular contact before and after the incident. The landlord apologised for sharing the ‘red flag’ information which was for internal use only. It apologised for the increased anxiety the resident experienced by it doing this.
   3. Said there were further security measures it could offer the resident, but it did not discuss them as she said she did not wish to return. The landlord further explained the mediation offer did not mean the resident and the neighbour had to be in the same room together. It said to take enforcement action there needed to be sufficient evidence of a significant tenancy breach, which it did not have.
   4. Confirmed it did not want to punish the resident. The landlord said it was right to highlight to her the tenancy conditions.
8. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the situation. As a resolution she would like the landlord to act on the incident, carry out checks before letting a property next to a known perpetrator of antisocial behaviour (ASB), and acknowledge it did not support her. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of alternative accommodation and ended her tenancy at this property in September 2023. The resident said she would like the landlord to refund the double rent she paid while moving properties and pay compensation for the upset caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint prior to our involvement. As such we cannot consider making an order for the landlord to compensate the resident for the double rent she paid as this happened after the landlord’s final response letter. The resident can raise this issue directly with the landlord as a formal complaint if she wishes.
10. The resident also raised concerns that the reported noise issues and stress caused have affected her and her child’s health. It is beyond our expertise to determine the cause of any deterioration in her or her child’s health. In our view, it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
11. The resident was clear with the landlord how scared she was to live in the property following the incidents. To safeguard her family, she decided to move out and live separately from her child. This was clearly disruptive to her family life, and we do not underestimate the impact of this. In this investigation we are looking to establish whether the landlord followed its policies, treated the resident fairly, and took the action we would expect it to take in the circumstances.

The landlord’s allocation of a property which the resident did not believe was safe, and its response when she moved out

12. We understand the resident believes the landlord should not have let the property, and specifically not to her, being a single woman with a dependent child. As a social housing provider, the landlord is obliged to make the best use of its stock and can only re-house residents to properties which it has available.
13. The resident advised us that the neighbour’s partner moved in after she did. As such, he was not living there when the landlord advertised and let the property. It was reasonable that the landlord did not know the status of the relationship or whether the partner would move into the neighbour’s property.
14. The landlord allocated the property through its CBL scheme. The landlord’s CBL policy states it will minimise delays by letting properties as quickly and efficiently as possible. The landlord will allocate the property initially to the applicant in the highest band with the oldest membership date. Then it will check if there are any additional stipulations in the local lettings strategy or advert. The landlord provided us with its local lettings strategy, there were no further stipulations. As there were no stipulations in the local lettings plan, it was reasonable for the resident to be allocated the property.
15. In her escalation request the resident stated that the landlord’s copying and pasting of the policy was not helpful. The landlord’s policies are its operating framework for treating people fairly. The landlord acted transparently by including it. While not diminishing the resident’s specific experience, the landlord frequently makes difficult decisions, and the policy provides the framework for this.
16. In her escalation request when the resident said the landlord had not correctly assessed the threat posed by the neighbour’s partner, she was referring to person A. A different person was later identified as being the neighbour’s partner (person B). When the resident stated she knew he was a “convicted violent, dangerous and aggressive misogynist” and she knew of “his criminal record and passed incidents and police involvement”, this information related to person A, not person B. While we are not negating the resident’s experience as she was clearly frightened by person B, he was a different person to person A. The landlord acted on the information it had been provided with. It approached the police to discuss the resident’s concerns about person A and later person B.
17. The resident stated the landlord said it would not visit the neighbour and her partner because it knows “what he is like” and it had a ‘red flag’ on the neighbour’s address to alert its employees to attend two at a time. It would be reasonable to assume this would have heightened the resident’s pre-existing concerns. We have not seen evidence of what the ‘red flag’ was for. Given the resident’s experience it would be reasonable to accept this was because of the neighbour’s partner’s behaviour. However, it could have been for a variety of reasons. The landlord apologised for disclosing internal information and advised it would refer itself to its internal governance team. The landlord recognised the additional concerns this gave the resident.
18. In the resident’s complaint she said she had been given conflicting information about ending her tenancy. This advice was from the landlord and from different teams within the local council. We are unable to assess the local council’s response. However, it is understandable there was conflicting advice as the organisations come from differing positions. This advice is commonplace in social housing, it is for the resident to decide what action to take once they have received the appropriate advice from each organisation. The landlord correctly advised the resident it was a condition of her tenancy agreement to use the property as her only and principal home, or if she was away from the property, that she had an intention to return. As the resident told the landlord she did not intend to return, it was appropriate for it to highlight this may be a breach of her tenancy.
19. In her escalation request the resident said that the landlord had not remained in regular contact with her aside from a call regarding the noise complaint. She said it had given no advice regarding the investigation and had not addressed the neighbour’s partners behaviour. She said she had received no support concerning her housing situation except from the landlord’s wellbeing team.
20. The landlord provided us with records of interactions with the resident. This shows contact between the landlord and resident. This includes a meeting on 7 February 2023 which stated both parties attended. In this meeting the notes state the landlord completed the necessary paperwork for the local council to progress the move. The landlord advised the police were not acting on the threats as it was word on word. It could not progress the nuisance case as with the resident not living there, she could not provide more evidence.
21. The landlord had been clear in its stage 1 response that as the behaviour was criminal in nature, and the police were not prosecuting, it would not take further action. In line with its ASB policy the landlord offered mediation in its stage 1 response. The resident refused this, believing it not to be safe. This was her right to do so. The landlord was aware the resident had support agencies working with her. The landlord’s levels of contact were reasonable given it was limited in its ability to progress as it was not responsible for assessing the housing application, there were no continuing reports of ASB, and the resident was not living in the property.
22. The resident clearly detailed how traumatic this episode was for her and her child. It considerably disrupted her life, and she felt forced to live apart from her child to keep them both safe. We do not underestimate the impact of this on the resident and her child. The purpose of this investigation is to establish whether the landlord followed its policies, treated the resident fairly, and took the action we would expect it to take in the circumstances.
23. Through its complaint process the landlord evidenced it followed our dispute resolution principles. It reviewed its actions and highlighted it acted in line with its policies. While it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, it dealt with her fairly by recognising the impact on the family. It offered a direct let which, in time, meant the family was reunited. This was reasonable. In accordance with the Scheme the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s allocation of a property which the resident did not believe was safe and its response when she moved out.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s allocation of a property which the resident did not believe was safe and its response when she moved out.