Summary: the Council failed to properly consider whether to award a higher banding to Miss B and delayed considering offering her a managed move/direct let. The action the Council has already taken in response to an investigation by the Housing Ombudsman, alongside introduction of a procedure for ensuring the outcome of the community trigger process is followed up on, is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complained the Council delayed reviewing her banding and in considering offering her alternative housing when the Council knew she and her child were in a high risk situation and feared for their health and safety due to the actions of their neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered the findings of the Housing Ombudsman investigation.
5. Miss B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s allocation policy in place at the time

6. The Council operates a choice based lettings scheme. At the time of the issues complained of the allocation policy said in exceptional circumstances the Council could make an urgent management move and allocate a property outside of the choice based lettings scheme. That was referred to as a direct let. The allocation policy said situations where the Council might need to make an urgent direct let included when a resident needed to escape serious harassment.
7. The allocation policy went on to say in certain circumstances the Council could allocate properties directly to applicants without advertising them. The allocation policy said a direct let would be agreed by a senior officer when, for example, a property was needed urgently to deal with an emergency or where an allocation was required to ensure protection of the public.

What happened

8. Miss B is a Council tenant and was experiencing harassment from her neighbour from 2018 onwards. Miss B reported those incidents of harassment to the Council. The Council served Miss B’s neighbour with a notice of seeking possession in 2019. That notice expired in April 2020. Miss B continued to report harassment but those reports were not recorded correctly by the Council and were not considered in relation to the notice of seeking possession.
9. The Council allocated a new housing officer to Miss B in August 2021. That housing officer agreed to call Miss B weekly. The Council acknowledged that did not take place consistently.
10. In August 2021 Miss B provided a detailed witness statement to the Council which showed 32 incidents of harassment between 2018 and 2021.
11. In September 2021 the Council told Miss B’s neighbour it was seeking possession as it was satisfied his behaviour was a breach of his tenancy agreement.
12. Miss B initiated a community trigger in September 2021. The community trigger panel considered the case on 8 October and assessed Miss B as high risk from her neighbour. The community trigger panel recommended:
• the Council prepare the case for its legal department by November 2021, with a view to initiate possession proceedings for the neighbour’s property;
• the Council to serve a community protection warning on Miss B’s neighbour;
• the Council to consider pursuing a restraining order against the neighbour; and
• for the Council to review Miss B’s banding and possibly move Miss B.
13. Miss B contacted the Council about her banding in October 2021. The Council’s estate management team asked the allocations team whether the fact Miss B was being harassed would change her banding. In response the allocations team said it could not award any additional priority for neighbour disputes or antisocial behaviour.
14. The Council wrote to Miss B in November 2021 to say as it had not fully exhausted its antisocial behaviour procedures it could not alter her banding. The Council said it could therefore not consider Miss B for a managed move. The Council later acknowledged it had not exhausted its antisocial behaviour procedures due to failures in its handling of the case.
15. The Council restarted the antisocial behaviour investigation in January 2022 and issued a breach of tenancy letter to Miss B’s neighbour.
16. Miss B put in a complaint to the Council on 4 January 2022. The Council responded to that complaint in February 2022 and acknowledged its failures in the way it had handled the antisocial behaviour. The Council said due to its failure in managing the case it would treat Miss B as an exceptional case and agreed to place her in band B so she could bid on suitable properties. The Council also said if it identified a suitable property it would tell Miss B and directly allocate that property to her.
17. Between February and July 2022 Miss B bid on six properties. However, five of those properties were not ready to let and the other was supported accommodation, which Miss B was not entitled to. The Council therefore did not offer any of those properties to her.
18. Following a further complaint the Council told Miss B it was doing all it could to move her as soon as possible and apologised for its failures in dealing with the antisocial behaviour case. The Council offered Miss B £250 to reflect her time and trouble and distress.
19. Miss B’s MP contacted the Council to find out what was happening with a new property for Miss B in June 2022. The Council told Miss B’s MP she was well placed on the shortlist for two-bedroom properties which the Council was waiting to be returned by its contractor. The Council told the MP it would arrange a viewing of any suitable property when the contractor returned the property to it. When the MP contacted the Council again in July it said it still did not have the properties returned to it but would be offering Miss B the first of those properties when it did.
20. The Council offered Miss B the first of those properties at the end of July. Miss B declined the property as it had shared communal areas. The Council offered the second property to Miss B in August 2022 and she accepted that property. Miss B moved into the property.

Analysis

21. The complaint I have investigated relates to how the Council applied its allocation policy in Miss B’s case. However, the original complaint also concerned how the Council dealt with antisocial behaviour issues over a four-year period which is what led Miss B to seek a move to a new property.
22. As Miss B is a Council tenant the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider the antisocial behaviour issues. Those issues instead fall under the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman has already completed its investigation. In its investigation Housing Ombudsman noted the Council had acknowledged failures in its handling of the antisocial behaviour case between 2018 and August 2021 in the following areas:
• poor recording;
• delays;
• failing to respond to Miss B’s complaint appropriately;
• failing to maintain agreed levels of contact with Miss B;
• failing to work effectively with partner agencies;
• failing to provide Miss B with sufficient support;
• failing to gather sufficient evidence; and
• failing to progress the matter to the legal team within the timescales.
23. The Housing Ombudsman’s overall findings were that the Council had missed opportunities to resolve the harassment Miss B was experiencing which had left her to continue to be a victim of harassment until she moved in August 2022. The Housing Ombudsman also noted the Council:
• failed to consider whether to offer Miss B a direct let/management move following the community trigger meeting in October 2021;
• offered no evidence it had contacted other housing providers to secure a suitable property or a temporary alternative when it agreed to increase Miss B’s banding and to consider a managed move in February 2022;
• failed to ensure its allocation policy provided a clear explanation of what direct lets are or define the trigger and the process for a direct let to be offered, noting that the Council also referred to such moves as management moves;
24. The Housing Ombudsman recommended:
• an apology to Miss B;
• financial compensation of £5 a day for Miss B and £3.50 a day for her child (which is equivalent to approximately 80% of the rent paid during the period) totalling compensation of £10,616.50 to reflect the fact Miss B had to live in fear daily for a significant period and longer than she should have had to;
• payment of £100 to Miss B to reflect the failure in complaint handling;
• various actions to address the failings in how the Council had considered the antisocial behaviour, including development of an action plan;
• a review the housing allocation policy on direct lets. This was to ensure the policy provides clarity on what is classified as a direct let, specifies the trigger for a direct let/managed move and defines a process to facilitate such moves;
• the Council share with the Housing Ombudsman details of how it will roll out the policy changes and train staff to ensure the policy is applied as intended, including the use of consistent terminology.
25. The Council has confirmed it has:
• amended its allocations policy to reflect the Housing Ombudsman’s recommendations;
• introduced a managed move and direct let information sheet;
• cascaded information about those changes to officers at team meetings.
26. I will not address in this statement issues which have already been adjudicated on by the Housing Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman’s conclusions are robust and the Council has accepted them.
27. From the perspective of how the Council handled the housing allocation side of the complaint the Council has accepted it should have referred the case sooner to its allocations team for consideration of a managed move for Miss B. I welcome the Council’s acceptance of fault here. I agree it would not be appropriate for the Council to move a person affected by antisocial behaviour as a first action as the Council should instead address the antisocial behaviour itself. However, there were clear failings in this case which meant the antisocial behaviour continued for four years before the Council considered whether to move Miss B and it only did that after she complained.
28. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied the Council missed an opportunity following the community trigger meeting in October 2021 to address the allocations issues in this case. As I say in paragraph 12, the community trigger meeting recommended the Council consider whether to increase Miss B’s banding. As the Housing Ombudsman has noted, although the Council addressed the issue of Miss B’s banding following the community trigger meeting it did not consider whether to offer her a managed move/direct let. That is despite the fact the Council’s allocation policy in place at the time provides for it to consider those options. Failure to consider that is fault. That meant the Council did not consider whether to offer a managed move/direct let until it responded to Miss B’s complaint in February 2022. I consider it likely Miss B suffered an injustice as a result because she was left living next door to a neighbour who was harassing her for longer than she should have had to.
29. I am satisfied the Housing Ombudsman has already remedied the injustice to Miss B by recommending a significant financial remedy, which the Council has accepted. I am also satisfied the Housing Ombudsman has partially remedied the housing allocations part of the complaint by recommending the Council review its housing allocations policy, which it has now done. However, I also recommended the Council put in place a process to ensure recommendations from the community trigger process which affect other Council departments, such as allocations in this case, are picked up and taken forward. The Council should also provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has made officers in the allocations department aware of the process for agreeing a managed move or direct let. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within two months of my decision the Council should
• draw up a process to ensure recommendations from community trigger meetings are taken forward and that an officer is given responsibility to ensure recommendations for other departments, such as allocations, are progressed;
• provide evidence to the Ombudsman that officers in the allocations department have been made aware of the process for agreeing a managed move or direct let.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman