Wandle Housing Association Limited (202406206)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406206

Wandle Housing Association Limited

17 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. application to be on the council’s waiting list.
2. complaint made in 2017 about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. reported nuisance caused by her neighbour’s dog including its communications with her.
4. request for a management move.
5. associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement that began on 29 October 2007. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor. The resident told the landlord during the complaints procedure that she has depression, anxiety, and post traumatic stress disorder. The landlord’s systems reflected the resident has depression.
During 2017 the resident explained that since she had moved to the property, she had experienced harassment, verbal abuse, and racial abuse from her neighbour. She also reported that other neighbours had regularly left rubbish in the communal hallways and caused noise nuisance.
The landlord carried out a home visit during October 2022 in response to the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s dogs. She said they were “roaming” around the communal areas without leads. She explained that she was “scared” to enter or leave her flat. The landlord interviewed the neighbour with dogs on 3 November 2022 but concluded that it could not take further enforcement action to remove the dogs because the neighbour did not own the dogs and instead advised that she was a dog walker.
Meanwhile, conversations took place between the resident and her housing officer. The officer agreed that given the impact the situation was having on the resident, they would submit a request for a management transfer. The officer submitted a management transfer request on 18 January 2023. The landlord rejected the management transfer request in February 2023 because it said there was no threat to life. However, this decision was not communicated to the resident at the time. The resident chased the landlord on numerous occasions for its decision on the transfer application between February 2023 and May 2023.
The resident made a complaint on 2 May 2023. She said:
1. she had been requesting a management transfer for years.
2. the property was not good for her family’s wellbeing or her mental health.
3. the officers kept changing and the landlord did not understand what she “had been through living [at the property]”.

The resident also attached a copy of the complaint she made in 2017 to the landlord.

The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 May 2023. It said:
1. the resident’s housing officer had resigned, and it was in the process of recruiting a replacement officer. In the meantime, the other housing officers would assist with any enquiries.
2. her management transfer request had not been successful. It recognised it had not notified her of this because of staff changes. It provided the decision letter and offered £50 for the delay.
3. it had not received any reports from the resident about noise from the dogs since December 2022. However, it recognised the impact this had on her mental health and would open a case to investigate the nuisance. It asked the resident to record any further incidents.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response. She also continued to report concerns over dogs in the communal block between July 2023 and March 2024. During this time, the resident:
1. made frequent reports on a monthly basis to the landlord about the dogs in communal areas. She also provided evidence such as recordings.
2. re-iterated her concerns that this was a breach of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. And that she was scared to leave her flat and the impact of the situation on her mental health.
3. chased the landlord frequently to ask what it intended to do about her reports and asked to be rehoused.
4. she said she was having to explain herself “over and over again” because her housing officer “kept changing”.
The landlord acknowledged some of the resident’s reports and said it would pass them to the relevant department to answer her enquiries. It also said:
1. it had carried out site visits to discuss the resident’s concerns.
2. sent letters to the neighbour to remind them of their “tenancy obligations”.
3. it had ordered signs that said, “no dogs allowed” for the communal areas of the property.
4. it had contacted the RSPCA, but they could not take any action unless there was suspicion of animal neglect.
The resident explained on 22 March 2024 that she wanted the landlord to respond to the complaint she made in 2017. The landlord said it would not progress the historical complaint. But it would forward her concerns to the neighbourhood department to respond to. The resident continued to report nuisance from the dogs.
The resident made a further complaint on 19 April 2024 and said:
1. her housing officers kept changing.
2. she had been requesting to move since 2016.
3. the local council would not allow her to join the waiting list. She wanted to landlord “put her on their housing register”.
4. her mental health had been affected, and the property had been left in disrepair.
In response, the landlord called the resident and conducted a home visit. It then issued a stage 1 response on 24 April 2024 and said:
1. it had carried out a site visit and spoken with other residents who had “confirmed [the resident’s] issue with large dogs”.
2. it had written to the site manager of the building to put up signs in the communal areas explaining that dogs were not allowed.
3. it had written to the neighbour to remind her of her tenancy obligations.
4. it had reviewed the local council’s “obligations to residents” and explained when an individual could apply to the housing register. It confirmed the conditions did not apply to the resident.
5. it no longer provided “property transfers” due to overcrowding or medical issues and she would have to refer to the local council for a move.
6. it could not control its staff from leaving but it tried its “ultimate best” to select experienced officers. It apologised for any stress caused as the resident had said she had to repeat herself. It would try to keep a “good relationship” with her and deal with her issues directly.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 April 2024. She had explained:
1. the landlord’s response was unreasonable.
2. the issues with the dogs were ongoing.
3. the local council was not considering her housing register application.
4. her anxiety had been negatively impacted by her neighbour.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 May 2024. It said:
1. it had liaised with the local council to support her to join the housing list. In doing so it had made enquiries about whether her application which was based on medical grounds had been appropriately assessed by independent medical examiners. It had also asked the council for more information about their decision that she did not meet the threshold to join the waiting list.
2. it had written to all residents with dogs at the property and had not received any further complaints about the issues she had raised. However, it would arrange a home visit to reiterate that “the dogs would need to be rehomed”.
3. it had liaised with the community safety team and found there were no other reported incidents of ASB in the block.
4. it said it would remind residents that the contact centre would direct any queries to the relevant department.
5. it agreed with the resolutions it had already offered because:
  1. its agreement with the local council meant all its properties had to be advertised through their letting system. And it had no influence over decisions made by the council’s allocations team. Therefore, it had given the resident the correct advice about this.
  2. her housing officer had addressed the reports she made about the dogs by writing to her neighbour and it had received no further reports. However, it would ensure “this” was followed up.
  3. it recognised it was unfortunate that there had been “one or two changes” in staff. But it had no control over staff pursuing career opportunities outside of the organisation. It said it had “maintained the level of service provided across the organisation”.
  4. it had reviewed her current officer’s communication and found it was delivering the level of service “as expected”.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 11 September 2024 because:
1. she continued to be inconvenienced by changes to her housing officer and dealing with multiple housing officers and not a designated individual
2. the landlord had not resolved the issue she had with the dogs. As a result, she felt her mental health had been “significantly impacted” and this affected her ability to fully participate in “the environment”.
3. she felt the landlord had not addressed the seriousness of the issues she had reported or offered any “adjustments” or a “reasonable solution to accommodate her and her family’s needs”.
4. she was seeking:
  1. for her landlord to support her to be rehoused.
  2. “recompense”.

Jurisdiction

The resident’s application to be on the council’s waiting list

As part of her complaint in April 2024, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the local council’s handling of her application to be on its waiting list. This included its decision that she did not meet the threshold to qualify for social housing. She wanted the landlord to “put her” on their waiting list.
The Scheme states at paragraph 41.d.:
1. “The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: d. concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.”
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint about her application to the council’s waiting list is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
We are unable to investigate how the local council exercises the provision of its wider public functions. This includes how it maintains its social housing waiting list and any decisions it makes in line with its allocations policy. Such considerations fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident is able to refer this element of her complaint to the LGSCO for further investigation if she remains dissatisfied. Our jurisdiction is limited to assessing the actions of the landlord and its provision of housing services. The landlord is not in a position to alter the council’s decision as to whether accept the resident’s waiting list application. As such, this complaint in its entirety falls outside of our jurisdiction.

The resident’s complaint made in 2017 about ASB

In March 2024, the resident explained that she wanted the landlord to answer the complaint she had raised in 2017 at stage 2 of its complaint process. She said that she had delayed in actioning her complaint because her mental health had deteriorated. The landlord explained that it could not address historical complaints. However, it said it would pass her enquiries to the relevant department to answer.
The Scheme states at paragraph 42.a.:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.

After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint made in 2017 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. We acknowledge the resident said her mental health had deteriorated which is why she did not progress the complaint at the time. However, as the complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure, and there is no evidence of a complaint-handling failure, the resident’s concerns about her complaint in 2017 fall outside of our jurisdiction. However, we have assessed how the landlord handled the resident’s request to investigate her complaint in 2017, which we consider was evidence of her continued dissatisfaction. This is investigated in the complaint handling section of this report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We recognise the resident has raised concerns that her mental health has been adversely affected by the landlord’s handling of her reports and concerns. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. As such we are unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we have considered if the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances when the resident raised concerns about her mental health.
We recognise that the resident said that the issues she experienced with the dogs were ongoing prior to October 2022. However, this investigation has assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from May 2022. This is 12 months before the resident’s complaint to the landlord in May 2023. While it is noted that the complaint which was raised in April 2024 was the only one to exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure, we have used our discretion to investigate matters relating to the May 2023 complaint. This is because there is evidence that the landlord should have progressed the May 2023 complaint but failed to do so. This is investigated further in the complaint handling section of this report.

Reports about her neighbour’s dog including its communications with her

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that:
1. residents must ask for permission to keep a dog, and it must have access to its own garden. If permission is granted the dog must be kept under control and not foul in the communal areas. Otherwise, it may take back permission if the animal is causing a nuisance or danger.
2. residents must gain permission to operate a business from the property. If the business causes a nuisance or annoys other people in the neighbourhood it can withdraw its permission.
The landlord said that it dealt with these types of issues through its tenancy management policy. This policy states:
1. “tenant[s] wishing to keep a pet(s) in the property must seek written permission. Permission will not be unreasonably withheld, though we would not usually give permission to keep a dog unless you have access to an individual garden”.
2. “tenants, occupants of the property or those visiting the property must not:
  1. keep any animals for commercial breeding purposes.
  2. allow any animal kept at the property to cause a nuisance to anyone in the local area, including our staff, agents, neighbours, or contractors.
  3. allow any animal kept at the property to foul in the home or in the shared areas or outside the property on, for example, roads, footpaths or play areas in the local area.
  4. allow any dog to go outside in communal Wandle spaces.
  5. keep any dangerous animals.
1. permission may be withdrawn if the pet(s) causes or leads to anti-social behaviour”.
Between October 2024 and April 2024, the resident made at least 17 reports about her neighbour’s dogs creating a nuisance in the communal areas of the property. This was because she said they would block doorways, bark loudly, and run up and down the hallway and gardens without a lead. She explained to the landlord as part of her reports that this was impacting her mental health because she did not feel safe entering and leaving the property.
Further, the landlord was later made aware in February 2024 by other neighbours that the issue with the dogs were persisting. The reports related to behaviour that suggested that the neighbour in question was not adhering to her tenancy conditions. Including that the dogs did not:
1. cause a nuisance to anyone in the local area, including neighbours.
2. foul in the home or in the shared areas or outside the property on, for example, roads, footpaths or play areas in the local area.
3. allow any dog to go outside in the communal spaces.
The landlord said it considered taking the following action:
1. in October 2022:
  1. contacting the RSPCA.
  2. writing to the resident’s neighbour to remind them of their tenancy obligations and that the dogs needed to be removed by 16 November 2022.
  3. sending a notice seeking possession and initiate injunction proceedings due to the potential breach of tenancy.
  4. referring the case to the local community safety team.
The landlord said in its contemporaneous notes that it took the following action:
1. conducted a visit to the resident’s home in April 2024. There is no evidence about what was discussed or any actions agreed by the landlord.
2. spoke with other neighbours and substantiated the resident’s reports concerning the dogs. It was unclear when this took place. There is no evidence about what was discussed or any actions agreed by the landlord.
3. encouraged the site manager to put up ‘No dogs allowed’ signs in the communal areas of the property in February 2024. There is no evidence to verify if this occurred.
The actions identified by the landlord were reasonable. However, there is limited supporting evidence that the landlord carried out any of these actions. The evidence provided to this Service largely consists of internal emails that stated in passing the action had been taken or considered. As such, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it:
1. interviewed the neighbour and sent them correspondence accordingly.
2. called the resident as suggested.
3. conducted site visits.
4. corresponded with the RSPCA and the community safety team.
This was a significant failing. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have captured more detailed information to evidence the action it took. Our Spotlight Report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ explains that records should tell the full story of what happened, when and why. If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation.
The evidence shows that the landlord logged the majority of the resident’s enquiries after October 2022. And said it would refer these to the relevant department to respond and the resident’s reports were often forwarded to the relevant team. However, there is no evidence the landlord regularly communicated with the resident regarding her reports and how it would try to resolve them. The landlord provided limited communication logs or records of contacts made to the resident during this time. We therefore cannot conclude that it did so. This is a record keeping failure. Instead, it is evident the resident asked for updates on numerous occasions during the complaint. By not communicating with her, the landlord understandably caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The resident said she felt the landlord was not listening to her. It is evident she spent a considerable amount of time chasing the landlord to try to get it to acknowledge her reports. For example, she chased one report she made in December 2023 on 6 occasions over 2 months to try to get the landlord to engage with her about it. The landlord said it would call her but there is no evidence that it did. These were also a series of missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations about what it could do to help resolve the issue with the dogs. This understandably would have caused her frustration and uncertainty about her case.
The landlord also said it interviewed the resident’s neighbour in November 2022. The neighbour advised they were a dog walker and did not keep dogs permanently. As a result, it emailed the resident to explain it could not take enforcement action, but it had advised the neighbour the dogs had to be on leads and supervised in the communal areas. It said it would reopen an investigation if there were further reports.
The tenancy agreement references the obligations concerning nuisances that may result from a resident running a business. It is unclear if the landlord considered this when it said it could not take further enforcement action. We would have expected the landlord to have demonstrated it had considered all the evidence and that it had to come to a reasoned decision not to take further action. This ought to have included considering the conditions of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement and investigating any action it could take regarding any potential nuisance the neighbour’s dog walking business was causing to the resident. That it did not was a failure to demonstrate:
1. it had considered the evidence available to it.
2. had reasonable regard or understanding of its tenancy management policy, or the contractual obligations in the tenancy agreement.
3. that it had come to a reasoned decision not to take enforcement action.
This was also a further missed opportunity to fully explain its position and why the circumstances did not warrant further intervention. This caused the resident distress because she felt the landlord was not taking action to consider her reports and the impact of the dogs on her mental health.
The resident said to the landlord in March 2024 that it had advised her it was contacting the RSPCA to have the dogs removed. After she had chased it on 3 occasions for a response, the landlord explained in June 2024 that the RSPCA would not act unless an animal was not being cared for. The delay in responding to the resident was a theme we observed during our investigation when the resident tried to engage with the landlord. On this occasion it apologised to the resident “if this process had been miscommunicated”.
It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge it had miscommunicated with the resident about this issue. However, it is unclear why it did not explain this to her at an earlier opportunity given it said it had explored the RSPCA as an option in October 2022. It was unreasonable for the resident to have needed to chase the landlord on multiple occasions to have her queries answered. It ought to have responded in a timely manner or alternatively explained the reasons for its delay. This could have prevented the resident from feeling ignored. Failing to acknowledge its persistent delays in responding to her was a missed opportunity to recognise the time and trouble she spent chasing it.
The landlord’s records do not reflect the extent of the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities. Our Spotlight Report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ recognises that we found a number of instances where a resident’s vulnerabilities had not been appropriately recorded, even when the landlord had been advised multiple times and the procedures explicitly stated that vulnerabilities would form part of the decision making process. In the absence of that information, wrong decisions were made, those most in need were not prioritised and residents were treated insensitively.
The resident frequently explained, when she was making reports, that the behaviour of the dogs was causing her mental health to deteriorate. She also said on different occasions she felt suicidal. The landlord said it was aware that the resident had mental health vulnerabilities. It said it took the following action:
1. attached the historical resident’s medical evidence to her file and referred her to “resident support” in October 2022. There is no evidence the landlord referred her to its resident support officer, and if it did, the outcome of this referral. This was a failure to document the steps it had taken to support the resident with her vulnerabilities. As such we could not be satisfied the landlord took adequate steps to support her.
2. in its management transfer request in January 2023, it categorised the risk of harm as “low to medium”. It is unclear how it assessed the risk to the resident or any support it had put in place to try to support her with the risk it had identified. This was a failure to document how it had considered the risk of harm to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to show what it intended to do to support the resident with the risk it had identified.
3. it referred the resident to her GP in January 2024 in email correspondence. This was a reasonable step because it signposted her for medical support. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not explore making such a referral sooner.
4. the resident provided the landlord with a psychological assessment in May 2024. There is no evidence it acknowledged receiving this report. This was a missed opportunity to show the resident it was taking her concerns seriously.
5. in May 2024, the resident as part of her complaint said she felt suicidal. Although the landlord acknowledged the complaint there is no evidence it tried to contact the resident to assess whether there was an immediate danger to her health. The evidence also does not demonstrate that the landlord gave consideration to any safeguarding measures. If no further action was to be taken this ought to have been documented with the reasons why. This was a failure to have due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In addition, there is no evidence the landlord used the above opportunities to reflect on its interactions with the resident. Or that it took meaningful steps to act by regularly assessing any ongoing harm being caused by the behaviour of the dogs. We recognise the landlord was not obligated to do this. However, had it done so, this could have informed its approach to engage more meaningfully with the resident. And demonstrated it was taking reasonable efforts to understand her vulnerabilities and to resolve the breakdown in communication that was contributing to the resident’s distress. We consider the landlord missed frequent opportunities to take adequate steps to assess the resident’s vulnerabilities which contributed to the resident’s loss of faith in the landlord.
The resident raised frequent concerns throughout 2023 and 2024 that her officer kept changing. As a result, she said she had to explain her situation with the dogs and her mental health “over and over again”. She also said she was concerned that this was having an adverse impact on the landlord’s approach to resolving her concerns.
The landlord said in its complaint responses:
1. it was unfortunate there had been “one or two” changes in officers, but it had “maintained the level of services” it provides “across the organisation”.
2. it could not control its staff from leaving but it would do its best to recruit experienced officers.
3. it apologised to the resident for how frustrating it “must be” repeating herself.
4. her current officer would try to deal with her issues directly.
5. it would remind the contact centre to direct queries to the relevant department.
The evidence shows the resident’s housing officer changed on 2 occasions during her complaint. We recognise that departure of staff is beyond the landlord’s control. We also recognise there is a natural level of disruption to normal service delivery that may arise from staffing changes. However, the landlord is responsible for managing its service delivery while these types of changes occur. This includes managing expectations of residents if there are staff shortages, explaining the impact of this, how long the disruption may last, and the steps it is taking to mitigate this.
There is no evidence the landlord did this until the resident raised concerns about it through the complaint procedure. In both scenarios the resident had already made numerous attempts to raise her concerns and had to chase the landlord for a response. Therefore, it missed an opportunity to notify the resident of the changes and how it intended to manage the case while it was trying to recruit a replacement officer. This ought to have been done at the point it was aware there might be a communication disruption. That it did not was a missed opportunity to address any uncertainty that may have been caused during a known period of transition. This caused the resident uncertainty, time, and trouble chasing the landlord.
The evidence demonstrates that landlord staff were keen to engage with the resident to ensure that it had a good understanding of the situation. This included new officers asking the resident to send information that it had previously provided her. In light of this, the landlord recognised the resident had to repeat herself and this may have been frustrating. We recognise there may have been an element of repetition for the officer to gain the most up to date position. However, we would also expect the landlord to have used its records to assist it to hand over the case in the interim.
It is unclear why this was necessary given the landlord had produced extracts from its case management system which were used to record the resident’s enquiries and had the ability to record case entries. We consider the landlord’s case management was hampered because the evidence it provided was often through internal emails. There was no clear record on a central system about what action had been taken. We cannot be satisfied based on the evidence provided that the information about the resident’s concerns was readily available. So that when officers changed, the matter could be sufficiently handed over. The landlord’s record keeping practices exacerbated the distress and inconvenience and caused time and trouble to the resident. As she had to explain information it ought to have already had available to it. This would have mitigated the need for the resident to re-explain her situation to various housing officers and the associated impact.
Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management explains the importance of good record keeping. In particular it references how this helps staff members who become responsible for a particular matter. In situations where the information is readily available, this enables officers to get a good understanding of the issue and what action has been taken, or not, and why. This helps to inform its approach and adds credibility to relationships. Had the landlord’s record keeping been clearer, this would have allowed interim officers to manage the case and contact with resident more efficiently.

Conclusion

The resident made consistent reports over a period of 1 year and 7 months. The nature of the reports showed that the neighbour’s dogs, regardless of whether they kept them as pets or for commercial purposes, appeared to be causing a nuisance to the resident and other occupants at the block. As such this ought to have triggered the landlord’s tenancy management policy and investigations into breaches of its tenancy agreement.
We consider there was severe maladministration by the landlord. This is because overall there were a series of significant failures which contributed to the distress and inconvenience of a vulnerable resident including:
1. the landlord failing to show reasonable regard for its tenancy management policy or the contractual obligations in the tenancy agreement.
2. the issue remained unresolved for an unreasonable period, and the issue remains unresolves at the point of investigation.
3. the landlord was unclear with the resident about its role or responsibilities towards the situation.
4. the landlord failed to adequately assess and respond to the resident’s vulnerabilities and identify opportunities to support her and engage meaningfully with her.
Overall, the landlord made some attempt to put things right but did not address the detriment to the resident. In doing so it failed to act in line with our dispute resolution principles to “Be fair, Put things right, Learn from outcomes”. This is because the landlord made a generic apology in its complaint responses that the resident was disappointed in its service. This failed to recognise any specific failures we have identified in this investigation that we consider it ought to have reasonably been aware of during its complaint investigation. Further, it also apologised for her frustration that she had to repeat herself to different officers, which was appropriate. However, it missed an opportunity to learn from the complaint and explain what it would do to prevent this issue from occurring again.
To put things right the must review its record keeping to prevent situations like this from occurring again and to identify wider learning from this to help support its investigations and communications. It must also apologise for the failures we have found. And pay the resident £750 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the substantive issue, including her vulnerabilities, and the time and trouble of the resident in pursuing her reports. We also consider the landlord would benefit from arranging training for relevant staff members about how to deal with vulnerable residents. This is in line with our approach to remedies in our ‘Remedies Guidance’.

Request for a management transfer

The resident’s officer made a request for a management transfer in January 2023. The landlord decided in February 2023 not to accept the request because it said the circumstances did not meet its threshold. Namely that there was no evidence of a “threat to life”.
The resident chased the landlord for the outcome on 9 occasions over the following months. The landlord responded on one of those occasions to say the enquiry had been passed to the relevant team and that the resident’s officer had left the organisation. There is no evidence, however, that it shared the outcome of the management transfer request. This was a missed opportunity to relay its decision making to the resident. This caused the resident time and trouble chasing the landlord for its decision.
The landlord did not explain the outcome of the application to the resident until after she made a formal complaint in May 2023. The landlord should not rely on the intervention of the resident and the use of the complaint process to issue its decisions. We consider the landlord did not respond reasonably to the resident’s request which caused a 3 month delay.
The landlord apologised for this in its stage 1 response and said its delay was due to staffing changes. It offered her £50 to recognise its failure. It also provided a copy of the outcome letter to the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances because the landlord recognised what went wrong, explained why, and tried to put things right.
The landlord’s decision not to award a management transfer was explained with reference to its management transfer policy. The policy outlines that a management transfer is reserved for different situations including an urgent based on “safety” as approved by its lettings panel. The landlord explained that it had no evidence of a serious threat being posed to her safety by the neighbours. It said the nuisance caused by the dogs “needed to be addressed” as well as support for her “health needs”. The landlord demonstrated it had assessed the evidence it had against its policy and came to a reasoned decision.
There is also evidence the landlord discussed alternative housing options with the resident, including how to pursue a mutual exchange. It also provided advice about the council’s allocations policy and liaised with the council to find out the progress of the resident’s housing application. As such the landlord tried to provide advice about alternative ways for the resident to move. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Overall, we consider that the landlord took appropriate and proportionate action during the complaints process to address the issues the resident had raised. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident made a complaint on 2 May 2023 about the handling of her management transfer, her officers changing, and its approach to her report about the dogs. The landlord responded on 16 May 2023, which was 9 working days later. This was in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
The resident went on to express her dissatisfaction on at least 4 occasions between June and July 2023. She said the issues with the dogs were ongoing, it had not considered her transfer request, and she wanted to understand all of her housing options. She also said she felt it was not taking her neighbour’s “breach of tenancy” seriously.
The landlord did not identify this as an unresolved complaint and escalate it to stage 2 of its process. That it did not meant it failed to progress the resident’s complaint through its procedure in line with the Code. Had it done so it is likely the resident’s complaint would have been answered at an earlier stage. This caused her time and trouble raising further complaints with the landlord to have her complaint answered. It also delayed her from seeking recourse through this Service.
The resident asked the landlord in March 2024 to respond to the complaint she made in 2017. The landlord said it was unable to do this because it was a historical complaint. It said it would “pass [her] queries to the relevant team”.
We recognise the landlord’s decision not to investigate historical complaints was reasonable. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. However, it was clear the resident remained dissatisfied, and there were live issues that she wanted to complain about. This should reasonably have resulted in the landlord raising a complaint. That it did not identify this meant it missed an opportunity to identify and progress the resident’s complaint at an earlier stage.
The resident made a further complaint on 19 April 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 April 2024. This was 3 working days later and in line with the timescales in the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 April 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 May 2024, this was 10 working days later. Again, this was reasonable because it was in line with the timescales in the Code.
While the landlord’s responses were timely, there were other issues with its complaint handling. The evidence shows the landlord failed on separate occasions to identify a complaint and an escalation request. This meant the resident’s complaint was not progressed through the complaint procedure at the earliest opportunity. This caused the resident time and trouble pursuing her complaint which mirrored the landlord’s approach to her substantive issues. For this reason, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ and to put things right the landlord must apologise to the resident for its failings. It must also pay her £150 to recognise its failures.
Our recent investigations into the landlord have identified that the complaint handling issues identified in this complaint are a recurring theme. We have made an order in our determination of case reference 202230608 relating to training for complaint handling staff and a quality assurance process to ensure the robustness of the complaint handling procedure. As such, we will monitor the orders we have already made in respect of this. In light of this we will not make any further orders in relation to its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to be on the council’s waiting list is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint made in 2017 about antisocial behaviour is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s dog including its communications with her.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. arrange for the CEO to write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £900 compensation comprised of:
  1. £750 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble of the resident as a result of the handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s dogs.
  2. £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of its complaint handling.
3. arrange for vulnerabilities training for relevant staff members. This must include:
  1. identifying vulnerable residents.
  2. conducting of risk assessments.
  3. how to appropriately identify and manage an emergency situation with a vulnerable resident.
4. contact the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns she has about the neighbour’s dogs. It must then write to her to explain how it will handle her reports including any action it intends to take.
Within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must conduct a review of its working practices when it records resident’s reports and enquiries about tenancy management issues including disruption caused when her officer changed. This is to help it identify any wider learning by ensuring it captures all relevant information relating to reports, any advice it provides related to this, and any action it takes as part of its investigation.
In doing so the landlord may find it helpful to refer to our KIM Spotlight Report with particular reference to:
1. recommendation 7.
2. recommendation 8.
3. recommendation 11.
4. recommendation 12.
5. recommendation 13.

Recommendation

We recommend the landlord create a process that enables it to notify residents with active cases when their officer changes and to explain what measures it had put in place to mitigate any disruption.