West Kent Housing Association (202307799)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307799

West Kent Housing Association

22 October 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request to be contacted by phone.
   2. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) case.
   3. Request to install a partition wall.
   4. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy for a flat, which is within a block of flats. The tenancy began on 18 April 2011.
3. The landlord is a housing association. It is aware of the resident’s disabilities and vulnerabilities.
4. Between August and October 2022, the resident reported several incidents of ASB to the landlord. These included the neighbour’s dog chasing the resident’s cat, the neighbour making comments about the resident and slamming her front door.
5. On 18 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and asked how she could request a partition wall to be installed in her flat.
6. On 20 October 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her ASB case, that it had failed to contact her by phone as she requested, and its refusal to acknowledge her request to install a partition wall.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 November 2022. In its response it said:
   1. Its communication with the resident was dependant on the situation, as sometimes it needed to provide a written response. Contact is not always possible by telephone, and it considers an email the same day reasonable. It acknowledged its communication over the last 2 weeks could have been better; to improve this it would trial a weekly call for a period of 3 months.
   2. It managed the ASB case appropriately. It was in regular contact with the resident between 22 August and 31 October 2022. It was proactive, assisted the resident in collecting evidence and ensured she had support through collaboration with its partners.
   3. Its staff had been considerate of the resident’s situation throughout the handling of the ASB case. It had made referrals to victim support, adult social care, the police and provided information about local organisations. The resident received regular contact, which included a meeting in person with the police.
   4. It did not agree that it should install a partition wall at the top of the resident’s stairs as there was no concern with the efficiency of the property. It said the resident could make a home improvement request, and it gave contact details for social services to request an occupational therapist assessment.
8. The resident requested a review of her complaint on 6 March 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 April 2023. In its response it said:
   1. It acknowledged and apologised that it did not always comply with the resident’s requests for call-backs. It offered £100 compensation for the distress caused.
   2. There will be some circumstances where an email response is a more appropriate method of response than a phone call. In these cases, the resident has the option of requesting a call back instead of responding to the emails if she feels this would cause her additional harm.
   3. Having reviewed the management of the ASB case before it was closed on 31 October 2022. It did not agree that it had been managed outside its policy.
   4. It believed its staff showed empathy and care, listened to and acted on the resident’s concerns, and completed safeguarding referrals when there was an increased level of risk. It also worked closely with the police and made referrals to support agencies.
   5. It would not be able to install a partition wall as a reasonable adjustment but would consider a tenant improvement request.
   6. It referred the resident’s comments about reasonable adjustments and discrimination to its housing litigation solicitor. It did not believe it had discriminated against the resident, however, it would be for the court to decide if it had acted reasonably in the circumstances.
   7. To understand the residents needs and what reasonable adjustments she needed, it offered landlord and resident mediation. It would contact the resident to arrange this and in the meantime, it would continue the weekly calls.
9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman as she felt the landlord had not resolved her complaint and the compensation offered did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. The resident has made several complaints to the landlord. This investigation has focussed on the complaint issues the resident raised in her complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2022. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of these issues from August 2022 to the end of its formal complaint’s procedure in April 2023. The resident does have other complaints open with the Ombudsman that are being investigated separately.
11. In the landlord’s complaint responses it investigated its handling of the ASB case from August 2022 to when it was closed on 31 October 2022. The Ombudsman is aware the resident continued to report incidents with her neighbour after the 31 October 2022, and another ASB case was opened. However, the Ombudsman cannot investigate these incidents as they did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord and therefore were not investigated by the landlord within its complaints procedure.
12. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of her ASB case and the way it communicated with her had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the residents request to be contacted by phone

13. In October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to call her about her ASB case. She said despite asking the landlord on numerous occasions to call her due to her vulnerabilities, it was still contacting her by email. In the residents complaint she said she finds it difficult to communicate in writing due to her disabilities.
14. The landlord does not have a separate policy for requests for reasonable adjustments, it told the Ombudsman it considers requests on a case-by-case basis and are agreed where it is possible to implement the requests.
15. The landlord apologised in its stage 1 complaint response that it had not always contacted the resident by her preferred communication method. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining to the resident that it may not always be possible for it to contact her by telephone. It offered to contact the resident weekly to improve its communication. The landlord arranged to meet with the resident to discuss a plan for the weekly calls. This was customer focused. It showed the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns, was taking her vulnerabilities into consideration and wanted to put things right. The resident cancelled the meeting; however, the evidence shows the landlord attempted to contact the resident weekly for a year until November 2023.
16. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 12 April 2023, it apologised for not always complying with the resident’s requests for call backs and the stress this caused the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations that sometimes an email was more appropriate than a call and that she had the option of calling it back rather than responding via email.
17. The landlord offered the resident mediation so it could understand her needs and what adjustments it needed to make to its services. But also to manage the resident’s expectations on what was and was not possible for the landlord and the reasons for this. This was pro-active and showed the landlord wanted to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
18. In summary there were times when the landlord failed to contact the resident by her preferred method of contact. The landlord acknowledged this and apologised for the distress this caused the resident. It showed learning and that it wanted to put things right by arranging weekly calls and offering mediation. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for any distress caused by its failure to contact the resident by her preferred communication method. This amount of compensation is in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
19. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be contacted by phone.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB case

20. On 22 and 25 August 2022 the resident reported 2 incidents with her neighbour. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss her reports within 24 hours which is in line with its community safety policy. The landlord acted appropriately by opening an ASB case, completing a risk assessment and making a referral to a support organisation.
21. The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB. When the resident told the landlord the ASB was causing her to self-harm and have suicidal thoughts, the landlord assessed the level of risk at these clear escalation stages and considered all options available to it to support the resident. This included making safeguarding alerts, referrals to support organisations and signposting the resident to several charities and organisations.
22. There was evidence the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident throughout the ASB case. It kept her updated and managed her expectations effectively. On 30 August 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to agree a clear communication strategy and action plan to seek to understand the extent of the ASB and what action was required. This included the landlord liaising with the police, its housing department regarding the resident wanting to move and speaking to medical professionals. It agreed to visit the resident with the police. The evidence provided showed the landlord carried out all the actions it promised within a reasonable timescale.
23. The landlord acted appropriately by ensuring the resident had access to all options to submit evidence of the ASB. It provided her with diary sheets and on 1 September 2022 it contacted the resident to advise her how to set up and use its ASB mobile phone app.
24. When the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the way the landlord was handling the ASB case, the landlord acted appropriately by advising her she could make a complaint and discussed the community trigger process. The community trigger process allows victims of persistent ASB to request a case review of their complaints of ASB.
25. In line with its community safety procedure the landlord interviewed, had meetings and wrote to the neighbour about the resident’s reports. The landlord first contacted the neighbour on 26 August 2022, this was 5 working days after the resident reported an incident. The landlord also offered mediation between the neighbour and the resident, however, the resident felt it would not be appropriate. The landlord acted pro-actively, and showed it wanted to resolve the issues for the resident as soon as possible.
26. The landlord closed the ASB case on 31 October 2022. Before doing so the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss its decision. It explained that although it accepted the issues the resident had reported was having a significant impact on her, it did not conclude ASB had taken place or the neighbours behaviour was unreasonable. The landlord’s community safety policy states the landlord can close an ASB case for these reasons, and where it believes it has delivered the appropriate actions and there was no further action necessary.
27. In summary the landlord responded quickly to the resident’s reports of ASB, there was evidence it communicated effectively with the resident and managed her expectations. It considered her vulnerabilities, carried out regular risk assessments, made safeguarding referrals and signposted to relevant support organisations. The landlord worked closely with the police and other organisations. Although the Ombudsman does not doubt the issues the resident reported caused her distress and inconvenience, the landlord explored all options available to it in line with its community safety policy to try to resolve the issues reported and support the resident.
28. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB case.

The landlord’s handling of the residents request to install a partition wall

29. On 18 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and asked how she could request a partition wall to be installed in her flat. On 20 October 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord stating she was advised she would need to make a home improvement request; however, she felt the landlord should install the wall to make the property more energy efficient.
30. The resident’s tenancy agreement states she must get written permission from the landlord before making any alterations or improvements to the property. It states that before any work is carried out the resident must get the approval needed for the work, such as planning permission and building regulation approval. The resident would also be responsible for ensuring work is carried out to a proper standard.
31. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acted appropriately by explaining that the resident’s request for a partition wall would be classed as a home improvement. It said it did not agree that it should install a partition wall as the energy efficiency rating for the property was reasonable. The landlord acted reasonably by clearly setting out the process the resident would need to follow and what information it would need to consider her request.
32. The landlord acted appropriately by considering the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities. It acknowledged that she said she suffered from the cold due to her disability and signposted her to social services to get an occupational therapist assessment to see if a partition wall could be considered as an adaptation. It acted reasonably by seeking specialist advice before making this suggestion and managed the resident’s expectations by stating the advice it received was that it was unclear if her request would be considered an adaptation.
33. In escalating her complaint, the resident told the landlord she would not be able to complete a tenancy improvement request due to the complexity and stress it would cause her because of her disabilities. The landlord acted appropriately by offering to provide signposting support to assist the resident in obtaining the information needed to make the home improvement request. It correctly managed her expectations by stating she would be responsible for paying any associated costs to obtain the information needed.
34. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it did not agree that it could treat the resident’s request as a reasonable adjustment. It acted reasonably by seeking advice from its housing solicitor. Although service providers must make reasonable adjustments if requested to do so to enable disabled people to use their services, what is ‘reasonable’ will depend on the circumstances relating to each individual request. It is outside the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord should accept the residents request for a partition wall as a reasonable adjustment. This would be down to a court to decide.
35. In summary the landlord communicated clearly with the resident and effectively managed her expectations. It considered the resident’s disabilities and vulnerabilities. It offered to provide her support to apply for a home improvement request and signposted her to social services to look into other options to get the partition wall installed. The landlord sought legal advice on reasonable adjustments before issuing its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman understands why the resident wants the landlord to install the partition wall, however, the landlord has no legal responsibly to carry out improvements.
36. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a partition wall.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

37. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It states it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 within 20 working days.
38. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 October 2022. The landlord contacted the resident via her preferred communication method to discuss the complaint on the 21 October 2022. It explained that it needed to send an acknowledgment of the complaint in writing. This was sent the same day, which was within its target timescale.
39. On 2 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord to delay its stage 1 response as she did not want to receive it while on holiday. The landlord agreed to an extension of 10 days. The landlord acted appropriately by communicating effectively with the resident and managing her expectations.
40. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 November 2022, this was 1 day outside the timescale given to the resident. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss its decision. Its response was clearly set out and covered all the resident’s complaint issues.
41. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 March 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states a resident must escalate their complaint within 20 working days. The policy states the landlord will consider escalations outside of this timescale if there are exceptional circumstances. The landlord acted reasonably by considering the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact this had on her requesting an escalation. It acknowledged the escalation on 13 March 2023, which was within its target timescale. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident twice to discuss the complaint before issuing its response.
42. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 April 2023, which was within its target timescale of 20 working days. Its response was detailed, clearly set out and covered all the residents complaint issues. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss its response the same day, however, she did not answer the phone. The landlord discussed the response with the resident the following day.
43. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint responses were within its target timescales, it ensured it understood the resident’s complaint and there was evidence of effective communication and record keeping. Its complaint responses were clear, thorough and empathetic to the resident’s situation.
44. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be contacted by phone.
46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB case.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a partition wall.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.