Summary: Ms X complained about the way Derby Homes, acting on behalf of the Council, handled her reports of antisocial behaviour and request for rehousing. Derby Homes was at fault for not considering an antisocial behaviour case review, for failures in its complaints handling, and in the way it handled her request for reasonable adjustments. It will apologise, pay her £600, and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way Derby Homes, acting on behalf of the Council:
1. decided a property was suitable for her when discharging a homelessness duty in 2017;
2. gave misleading advice about whether she would have the Right to Buy an alternative property offered in 2022;
3. communicated with her about a delay in making available a property she had accepted in February 2023;
4. its failure to consider making reasonable adjustments regarding its communications with her;
5. handled her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour; and
6. considered whether the ASB she had reported and a medical condition meant she should have additional priority on the Council’s housing register.
2. Ms X said these failings meant she had to remain in unsuitable accommodation and subject to ASB that triggered memories from her abusive childhood for longer than she should have done, causing avoidable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. 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)
4. The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) 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 HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner or failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
7. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’, and ‘learn from outcomes’ – the HOS will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, both HOS and LGSCO make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base any findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. If the LGSCO is 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)
10. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Scope of our investigation

11. Both LGSCO and the HOS cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended, and Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
12. Further, LGSCO cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
13. Ms X complained to LGSCO in March 2023 that the property offered to her in discharge of a homeless duty in 2017 was not suitable. This complaint is late. Ms X has not provided good reasons for the delay in complaining to us. Further, Ms X would have had a statutory right of review and appeal when she accepted the property if she considered the property was not suitable. Where there are review/appeal rights, we can only investigate where it would not be reasonable to expect her to exercise those rights. Ms X has not provided good reasons for us to conclude it was not reasonable for her to do so. Therefore, LGSCO will not consider complaint 1 a).
14. Ms X also complained about the Council’s handling of her reports of ASB from 2017 onwards. Given the lapse of time, we would not be able to make robust findings for the period 2017 to 2019, nor provide a worthwhile outcome. We have therefore restricted our investigation to the period from November 2020 to April 2023.
15. In this case, Derby Homes manages the Council’s social housing stock. It also manages the housing allocation services on behalf of the Council. The Council remains responsible for services provided by Derby Homes on its behalf.

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

16. Ms X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both LGSCO and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
17. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within their jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.
18. We considered:
• the information Ms X provided during discussions about her complaint;
• the information Derby Homes/the Council provided in response to our enquiries; and
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
19. Ms X, Derby Homes, and the Council had an opportunity to comment on our joint draft decision. We considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What we found

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

20. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(1) and (14))
21. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded, or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

22. This Council’s scheme places applicants in one of three bands:
• corporate needs band, which includes applicants whose current housing is having a significant detrimental impact on their medical condition;
• priority needs band, which includes those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, those who need to move on medical and welfare grounds, and those at serious risk of harm in their present home, including victims of serious anti-social behaviour; and
• general needs band.
23. The scheme also says the Council may hold back some properties so it can make a discretionary offer.

ASB

24. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle ASB. ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
25. LGSCO can investigate how councils respond to an ASB report and consider using their general powers to address ASB.
26. HOS can investigate how a landlord responds to an ASB report from a tenancy management perspective, in line with its policies and procedures, including whether it has appropriately considered taking action under a tenancy agreement.
27. Derby Homes’ ASB policy says it will:
• take ASB complaints seriously, recording and investigating them all, and providing regular updates to all involved parties;
• work closely with neighbourhood policing teams and a range of other partners, as well as local area coordinator teams, to deal swiftly and effectively with ASB problems;
• provide comprehensive support and help for victims and witnesses of ASB, having regard to those identified as vulnerable;
• act in line with the latest national standards and regulatory frameworks; and
• not move complainants or alleged perpetrators who are tenants as a means of resolving ASB (except in exceptional circumstances) – it will deal with the problem.

Noise nuisance

28. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’, such as noise.
29. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
30. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, install noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
31. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
    Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.
32. LGSCO can investigate how councils consider whether noise amounts to a statutory nuisance.

ASB community trigger

33. The community trigger, or ASB case review, was introduced by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
34. Where a person requests a review, and the local threshold criteria is met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. This includes:
• sharing information;
• considering the action already taken;
• considering if further action is needed and, if so, creating an action plan; and
• informing the complainant of the outcome.
35. It is for relevant local bodies to agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, when a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.
36. LGSCO can consider a council’s actions in relation to the community trigger as this is a general ASB power. Any contribution made by other relevant bodies, such as the police, is not in LGSCO’s jurisdiction.
37. The Council’s policy says a person can use the ASB case review process if they have reported three or more related ASB incidents in the previous six months. The review process is managed by the Council on behalf of all organisations involved, including the police, local health teams and housing providers.

Equality Act 2010

38. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
39. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
40. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

Derby Homes Restricted Contact Policy

41. This policy, effective from November 2020, aims to address unreasonable contact or behaviour, which it defines as “abusive, excessive, persistent and/or intimidating contact from customers which is taking up a disproportionate amount of time or exhibiting unreasonable behaviours”. Examples include behaviour that seeks to harass, verbally or otherwise intimidate its employees, sending excessive numbers of emails, leaving offensive voicemail messages, and repeatedly approaching it through different routes about the same issue.
42. It accepts that “in some cases the behaviour may be related to a disability or impairment” and “this must be taken into consideration in order to support the customer”. Where it identifies a person “has specific needs that cause them to behave in socially unacceptable ways or behave in a challenging manner”, it seeks to act in ways that do not prevent them from accessing services.
43. Initially the relevant service manager will contact the customer in writing to explain why their behaviour is causing concern and give them the opportunity to change their behaviour. If this does not result in positive change, the case will be considered by the relevant head of service and restrictions may be imposed. It will write to the customer to explain its decision and they have a right of appeal. Any restrictions will apply for 12 months, following which there will be a review.

Derby Homes complaint process

44. Derby Homes aims to:
• confirm its understanding of the complaint and the outcome(s) sought;
• investigate and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days or longer period, if agreed with the complainant;
• investigate and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days or agree an extension, if needed.
45. Its policy says complainants will be kept fully updated and the reason(s) for any delays explained.

What happened

46. Ms X moved to property A in 2017 after becoming homeless. She said she started experiencing ASB from her neighbour, Ms Y, right from the start and reported this to Derby Homes. Ms Y also made reports about Ms X. Derby Homes responded to the reports, spoke to both neighbours, and liaised with the police. Following their involvement, there would be periods of no reports, following which difficulties would flare up again.
47. This investigation covers the events from November 2020 to April 2023. Our decision statement provides a summary only: it does not include everything that happened or refer to all the records we have seen.
48. In November 2020, Ms X reported further concerns about Ms Y, following an argument on the stairwell, and Ms Y also reported concerns. Derby Homes noted the two did not get along, but said it was not able to get involved at this stage. It did, however, open a new ASB case.
49. Later in November 2020, Ms X told Derby Homes she did not want to receive emails due to her autism and asked it to communicate by letter.
50. In early December 2020, the police told Derby Homes Ms X had reported that Ms Y had threatened to damage her car and beat her up. Ms Y denied this. The police were unable to prove anything and advised both parties to stay away from each other.
51. In January 2021, Ms X reported difficulty uploading noise recordings using the Derby Homes’ noise app. She also said she did not feel comfortable using the app because it meant she had to stand close to where her neighbour was being abusive, which she found threatening given her autism and mental health issues. She said she had made some recordings using a dictaphone, which she wanted to send on a USB drive. Derby Homes advised her not to send anything to its offices as officers were working remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It gave her advice about using the noise app.
52. In February 2021, Ms X sent video and audio recordings by email, and a log of incidents. Derby Homes reviewed these within 2 days. Its records stated the evidence related to historic incidents and some of the audio recordings were blank. The case was discussed with a manager, who recommended offering mediation but, before that could be done, Ms X reported a further incident. The police were involved. Ms Y admitted she was at fault, that she had been drinking and lost control, and she agreed to write an apology letter. Derby Homes told Ms Y if there were further incidents, it may take formal action. It again advised both parties to stay away from each other.
53. In March 2021, Derby Homes wrote to Ms X. It explained:
• the evidence sent in early February was not sufficient to support formal action;
• it was aware of the further incident, which resulted in Ms Y sending an apology letter, and it had spoken to Ms Y about it;
• it would continue to monitor the situation, but no formal action could be taken at that stage.
54. Ms X responded that Derby Homes had ignored her concerns and she had sought legal advice. She also said the noise app was inefficient and caused her harm in view of her autism and mental health issues. A few days later, Ms X reported further incidents. She said Ms Y was targeting her disabilities and she felt harassed. She confirmed she did not want to consider mediation.
55. Derby Homes acknowledged the further incidents and her request for communication by letter only. It appointed a Complex Needs Officer, Officer 1, to support her with her concerns and liaise with the ASB team on Ms X’s behalf.
56. The police told Derby Homes in April 2021, that the neighbour dispute could not be resolved, mediation had been offered previously but declined, and that there was insufficient evidence to support formal action. The police also reported that Ms X had told them she wanted to end her tenancy. Ms X also told Officer 1 in April 2021 that she wanted to move.
57. Ms X applied for rehousing on 16 April 2021. Her application was accepted and she was awarded priority for general medical need. In July 2021, an ASB officer requested additional priority on the basis Ms X had suffered verbal abuse, threats, distress, and harassment from neighbour. This was agreed.
58. There were no ASB reports recorded between April 2021 and February 2022, when Ms X reported “several small incidents” but nothing lasting long enough for her to evidence. However, she felt she was being harassed and that Derby Homes had decided to keep her in an abusive situation. She also said she had not been given the correct priority on the housing register.
59. Ms X made further reports in February 2022 about Ms Y constantly shouting, calling Ms X names, and attacking Ms X. Ms X contacted multiple officers about ASB and rehousing. In April 2022, Officer 1 reported Ms X wanted a two bedroom property and would not consider private rented accommodation. Officer 1 also reported that Ms X had started sleeping in a van to avoid Ms Y.
60. On 24 June 2022, Ms X told Derby Homes she had been diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Derby Homes reviewed her application and changed her medical priority from general to severe on 21 July 2022.
61. In June 2022, Ms X reported Ms Y was waking her in the night, calling Ms X’s name, and shouting and swearing. She said she could provide recordings. Also in June 2022, Ms X made a formal complaint to HOS. She said:
• she should not have been placed in her current property in 2017;
• she had suffered ASB by a neighbour since the start of the tenancy, and was now sleeping in a van as she did not feel safe at home;
• due to mobility issues, she struggled to manage in her current property; and
• she wanted to be rehoused.
62. Derby Homes tried to call Ms X to discuss the complaint and recent ASB reports. It had a discussion with her by telephone about the complaint in late July and a face to face meeting in August 2022.
63. In early September 2022, Ms X contacted HOS to raise further concerns, including concerns about:
• the design of the building where she lived, which meant noise travelled easily;
• the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB, including forcing her to use a noise app to record the ASB; and
• the landlord’s handling of her request for reasonable adjustments.
64. Also, in September 2022, Derby Homes tried to arrange a meeting to discuss Ms X’s ASB concerns, but Ms X cancelled it. Ms X called back in late September 2022. She said she:
• had not read letters from Derby Homes and did not want them read to her;
• did not want calls on Fridays as they upset her over the weekend; and
• felt unsupported because Derby Homes’ officers were not helping her to pursue a complaint about themselves with HOS.
65. Derby Homes called Ms X to discuss two possible offers of alternative accommodation in late September 2022. It also responded to the complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process. It said:
• it had agreed Ms X could record the noise nuisance in other ways rather than using its noise app, and would allocate a new officer to address her recent ASB reports;
• her priority on its housing register had been reviewed as part of the complaints process. She was now in the Corporate Needs band, which reflected the ASB and severe medical need, and the Council was making bids on suitable properties on her behalf;
• it would make a referral to the complex needs team for further tenancy support;
• it had noted her request for communication in writing; and
• it noted an officer had ended a call with Ms X when she continued using a raised voice after being asked not to do so. It said it did not expect officers to continue with calls if they were being shouted at.
66. In October 2022, Ms X reported two further ASB incidents. Ms Y also made reports.
67. On 24 October 2022, Ms X viewed property B, which Derby Homes had identified as a discretionary offer. Derby Homes said applicants would usually be given 24 hours to decide. Ms X initially said she would accept but asked if certain work could be done. Derby Homes wrote to her on 18 November 2022 to confirm what work it would and would not carry out. Its letter said it would make one discretionary offer only.
68. Also on 18 November 2022, Derby Homes wrote to Ms X to set out its concerns about the way she was communicating with it. It said it wanted to be able to work with her in a positive manner as it was aware she was dyslexic and had autism. It said it wanted her to have a single person to communicate with and said Officer 1 would be her contact.
69. At a meeting to sign the tenancy agreement in November 2022, Ms X asked whether she would have a right to buy (RTB) the property. Derby Homes explained that as property B was supported accommodation, there was no RTB, at which point Ms X refused property B. Also at the November 2022 meeting, Ms X confirmed there had been no further ASB issues.
70. In response to our enquiries, Derby Homes confirmed it does not routinely consider the potential for RTB when identifying a property for a discretionary offer – such decisions are based solely on housing need.
71. Derby Homes wrote to Ms X to formally withdraw the offer of property B. It said that, as she had refused a suitable offer, it would not look for another property. Ms X said she had asked about RTB twice, did not agree property B was suitable for her, and said Derby Homes was discriminating against her.
72. In early December 2022, Ms X said she was not satisfied with the complaint response and wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2. Derby Homes responded at stage 2 on 14 December 2022. It said it had made a discretionary offer, which Ms X had refused as there was no RTB. Although property B met her housing needs, it recognised the RTB was important to Ms X, and had agreed to make a further discretionary offer.
73. In its stage 2 response, Derby Homes also acknowledged that it had received a recording from Ms X which demonstrated loud shouting coming from Ms Y. Ms X had made this recording by setting her phone to record and then leaving the room. Derby Homes apologised for not having identified this solution sooner and agreed that she could provide evidence of this nature going forward.
74. In January 2023, Ms X reported a further incident to police, following which Derby Homes sent a warning letter to Ms Y.
75. Also in January 2023, Derby Homes reviewed the single point of contact arrangement. It said that due to ongoing abusive, excessive, and persistent contact, it could no longer offer the service. It said it would not accept contact by telephone, social media, or text, and Ms X would need to contact it by email or letter in future. Ms X complained that this did not meet her disability needs.
76. In response to our enquiries, Derby Homes said it had considered Ms X’s disabilities when it offered a single point of contact in November 2022, and hoped that would be a positive adjustment for her. However, it could not continue to offer this in light of Ms X’s behaviour. It said it considered her needs, applied its policy, and explained to her that the restrictions were needed to manage communication with her in a positive manner.
77. In March 2023, Ms X told HOS she had not read the stage 2 complaint response and HOS summarised it for her. She confirmed she wanted HOS to investigate her complaint. By that point, Derby Homes had offered property C, but works were being carried out before she could move. Ms X complained that Derby Homes had not kept her updated about delays in completing that work. Ms X moved to property C in May 2023.
78. Records show Derby Homes wrote to offer Ms X property C on 14 February 2023. Ms X viewed the property in early March 2023 and accepted it. At that point, Derby Homes told her it expected the property would be available around 20 March 2023 but said it could be later. It contacted her in early April 2023 with a revised date and wrote to her again on 28 April 2023 to confirm the property would be available the following week. There was a delay in signing the tenancy agreement as Ms X was not able to make two meetings arranged to do this due to illness.
79. In response to our enquiries, Derby Homes explained that a large amount of asbestos needed to be removed from property C, which was contracted out to an external specialist contractor. Due to queries about the contract and the scale of the work needed, the estimated completion date was extended four times. It accepted that there were times it did not keep Ms X up-to-date and said it was willing to apologise to her for this.
80. Derby Homes also provided the following additional information in relation to its handling of the ASB:
• Statutory noise nuisance: the complaints of ASB were mainly about verbal altercations with Ms Y. There were a small number of incidents involving noise and warning letters were sent to Ms Y. Ms X did not agree to have noise monitoring equipment installed. It did review the audio recordings she provided but was not satisfied this was evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. It was not able to provide a record showing it had discussed the limitations of not using noise monitoring equipment with Ms X.
• Noise monitoring app: when Ms X had concerns about using the noise monitoring app, Derby Homes offered to install noise monitoring equipment instead, which she declined. It also reviewed audio recordings she sent it. It said it always allows customers to provide evidence by other means and does not restrict them to using the app.
• Support for Ms X and Ms Y: Derby Homes provided evidence it had made referrals for additional support for both Ms X and Ms Y. Ms X had the support of a complex needs officer between February and November 2021, when she stopped engaging with the service.
• ASB case review: Derby Homes did not consider using its ASB case review process. It considered this was not necessary as it was doing all it could to manage and resolve the ASB issues that were being reported, within its policy framework. It provides information about the ASB case review on its website but did not explicitly advise Ms X of this option.

Our findings

Right to Buy (LGSCO)

81. In November 2022, Derby Homes offered property B, which it considered met Ms X’s housing needs. It responded to her questions about the property, before and after she viewed it. In a meeting to sign the tenancy agreement, Ms X asked whether she would have a RTB. There is no record of her asking about this earlier. Derby Homes told her there was no RTB because it was supported accommodation. On this basis, Ms X decided not to accept the offer.
82. Whether or not there was a RTB did not affect whether property B met Ms X’s housing needs. Therefore, it was not fault for Derby Homes to offer property B, nor was it fault for it to initially say it would not make a further discretionary offer when she refused it as this was in line with its policy and its offer letter confirmed it would only make one offer. However, it later reviewed its position and made a further offer, which Ms X accepted.

Communications about the delay in property C being available (LGSCO)

83. Ms X complained Derby Homes did not keep her updated about the delay in property C, which she accepted in February 2023, being available for her to move to. The records show that in early March Derby Homes told her it expected the property would be available around 20 March, but it explained it may be later. It updated her on 4 April and again on 28 April and she moved to the property in May 2023. It therefore kept her updated at least every month, and although it could have provided more information about the reason for the delays, this did not amount to fault.

Reasonable adjustments (HOS)

84. It is evident that Ms X informed Derby Homes as early as November 2020 that she wished for all communication from it to be sent by post. She explained that this was due to her autism.
85. Derby Homes has confirmed to the HOS that it was aware of this request but that it considered it to have been an ‘informal request’. It is not evident, however, that Derby Homes has a process in place for a ‘formal request’ to be made, or, if it did, that it had made Ms X aware of this. The Housing Ombudsman would expect a landlord to be proactive when it comes to ensuring reasonable adjustments for vulnerable residents are made. This should include formally setting out its understanding of what reasonable adjustments are required and a confirmation that it will adhere to them going forward. Derby Homes did not do this, however. While it is evident that this request was noted somewhere on its system, it missed the opportunity to confirm its approach with Ms X or otherwise to have measured her expectations about how it would contact her.
86. Ms X advised the HOS that she had raised concerns about reasonable adjustments as part of her formal complaint. Derby Homes also confirmed this was part of her complaint in its communication dated 8 September 2022. In its stage one response, it confirmed that there was a note on her file that all correspondence should be sent by post. It then focused on a recent telephone exchange with its staff member in which the staff member had hung up the phone. While it appropriately set out its policy around calls where raised voices occurred, it missed the opportunity to fully elaborate on its position about future communication aside from noting Ms X’s previous request for post.
87. In its communications with the HOS, Derby Homes has explained that while it was aware of Ms X’s request for post, Ms X had herself communicated by email and text. Derby Homes further explained that it was common practice for its staff to respond in the same medium of communication as that received. While this is understandable, Ms X’s use of email does not negate her request for contact from Derby Homes to come by post. As Ms X explained in a communication dated 28 November 2022, reading long documents on a digital screen caused her eye strain and migraines. While it may have been difficult for Derby Homes to have ensured all of its staff knew of the requirement for post given the number of staff in different teams that Ms X had contacted, it nevertheless missed the opportunity to manage her expectations that correspondence from some staff may come in the same medium as it was received.
88. Derby Homes has also pointed out to the HOS that in her applications for new properties, Ms X noted that she was able to receive short emails but also wanted Derby Homes to notify her about such communications by text to ensure she did not miss them. It is not evident that it ever did this or confirmed its position about this request. Derby Homes has also advised the HOS that Ms X did not always open her post. While it may have been the case that the originally requested reasonable adjustment was not working, it was not appropriate for Derby Homes to abandon it altogether. Instead, Derby Homes should have discussed an alternative approach, and once again, it should have formally confirmed the outcome of this discussion. By not doing so at the earliest opportunity, Ms X was left unclear about Derby Homes’ approach to communication, and she was exposed to further avoidable emails, which caused her distress.
89. On 18 November 2022, Derby Homes advised that, based on an excessive amount of communication sent to its staff, it had put in place a single point of contact going forward. It would now send all communication by email and also send a text alert notifying Ms X about the email. Derby Homes also specifically noted that this approach was intended to address Ms X’s previous concerns about reasonable adjustments. This approach was appropriate in the circumstances and clearly articulated Derby Homes’ position going forward. The letter also acknowledged the frustration the previous approach had caused and identified Ms X’s specific needs as part of its approach.
90. However, as noted above, on 28 November 2022, Ms X expressed concern about the impact of lengthy emails on her health. This was an opportunity for Derby Homes to revisit its approach; however, it is not evident it did this. Instead, in its stage two response, Derby Homes confirmed it was continuing with its current single point of contact approach. It did not address Ms X’s concerns about emails.
91. Following the stage two response, on 30 January 2023, Derby Homes advised that, given the continued excessive communication from Ms X, it would no longer use the single point of contact approach. It also confirmed it would no longer respond to telephone calls or texts and would only respond to emails or post. While its letter appropriately provided examples of the behaviour it was seeking to manage and advised Ms X about how she could request a review of its decision, it did not set out the timeframe over which it would enforce this approach or when it would re-evaluate it. It also once again failed to confirm the medium in which it would communicate, despite this issue having been raised multiple times before. This would have added to Ms X’s frustration, and an order has been made below for Derby Homes to contact Ms X and inform her of how long these measures will be in place (should they still be ongoing). Additionally, an order has been made for Derby Homes to confirm by post the medium through which it intends to communicate with Ms X going forward.
92. In summary, it is clear that Derby Homes was aware of Ms X’s desire for communication to be sent by post. While this approach was not always followed by Ms X, and may not have always been possible for Derby Homes, it failed to formally advise her of its position on her request for this adjustment, despite having multiple opportunities to do so. It also failed to fully articulate its position in its formal complaint responses, despite being aware that the issue of reasonable adjustments formed part of Ms X’s complaint.
93. The above failings would have caused distress and inconvenience for Ms X and amount to service failure in the circumstances. In addition to the orders noted above, an order for £250 compensation had been made to reflect the impact caused to Ms X.

ASB – general ASB powers (LGSCO)

94. LGSCO has considered whether Derby Homes, on behalf of the Council, properly addressed the noise complaint and considered the use of general ASB powers.
95. The records show that almost all the ASB reports related to verbal altercations with Ms Y. There was an incident involving Ms Y playing loud music and singing, and Derby Homes addressed this by sending a warning letter to Ms Y.
96. In its response to our enquiries, Derby Homes confirmed it had not advised Ms X about the community trigger process or considered using the community trigger process. It is clear Ms X is vulnerable and the community trigger process was developed for such cases. By April 2021, the threshold of three reports in six months was met. Ms X was saying she was harassed and wanted to move, and she had been reporting ASB for three and a half years. A case review allows all relevant agencies to come together to review the action that has been taken and consider other possible action, as well as whether additional support can be provided to victims. This could have included considering whether she could be supported to move.
97. On balance, Derby Homes, acting on behalf of the Council, was at fault for not considering an ASB case review or telling Ms X she could ask for this. We cannot say what the outcome would have been if the process had been used, but Ms X is left with uncertainty about whether it would have been different, which is an injustice to her.

ASB – tenancy management (HOS)

98. HOS has considered how Derby Homes addressed the ASB reports Ms X made from a tenancy management perspective.
99. Derby Homes’ ASB policy notes that it will use recordings as a way of managing ASB. Following reports from Ms X, Derby Homes advised her that she could provide recordings through its ASB app. It is not disputed that Ms X informed Derby Homes of the difficulty this caused her, given that she had to stand in the corner of the property in order to make a recording. This meant she had to endure listening to the verbal abuse from Ms Y while she made the recording.
100. While Derby Homes offered Ms X the use of professional recording equipment, it is not evident that it initially considered any other reasonable adjustments. This was despite Ms X offering to provide recordings from her Dictaphone, which she was able to leave running while not being present. Derby Homes’ internal records show that when presented with the option of reviewing Dictaphone recordings in July 2020, its staff dismissed this evidence and noted they had “told her if she doesn’t use the noise app, I cannot pursue her complaint.”
101. Throughout the period of the ASB, Derby Homes also advised that Ms X could provide diary sheets detailing instances of ASB. However, Ms X expressed difficulty completing the diary sheets and requested to provide her evidence by email. It would have been appropriate for Derby Homes to have exercised its discretion with regard to diary sheets. It could have explored ways to help her record and compile her evidence, such as offering assistance to connect with advocacy services or using the evidence she had sent in her emails in place of the diary sheets. It could have also offered alternatives, such as suggesting she provide recorded messages using a Dictaphone or mobile phone, or it could have offered to transcribe the information Ms X provided via email/telephone onto the diary sheets. However, it is not evident that Derby Homes considered any such options. Instead, it periodically informed Ms X that, without appropriate evidence, it could not take further action.
102. Derby Homes’ ASB records do demonstrate that it responded to Ms X’s reports and took some appropriate action, including sending warning letters to Ms Y and referring concerns to the police where appropriate, with whom they also worked alongside. However, despite this action, it is not evident that Derby Homes kept Ms X adequately informed about what action it was taking. Its action plan, dated 11 May 2021, was very brief and only contained three actions, two of which related to what Ms X was expected to do. There is no evidence that the action plan was properly discussed or completed in consultation with Ms X, or that it has been reviewed or added to at any point since.
103. Derby Homes has advised the HOS that throughout the course of its ASB responses, there were times where Ms X did not engage in its investigation. While the Housing Ombudsman understands this can be a barrier to a landlord’s service delivery, it is also symptomatic of a breakdown in trust caused by a landlord’s failings in a case.
104. A comprehensive and meaningful action plan would have been an opportunity to agree on a preferred method of contact and to arrange convenient dates and times when Derby Homes could catch up with Ms X. It would also have been a chance for Derby Homes to manage Ms X’s expectations in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives. The plan could have set up a formal contact arrangement and, in the Housing Ombudsman’s opinion, helped form a better working relationship between Ms X and Derby Homes. It should also have set out specific actions Derby Homes would be taking to provide support, which would have given Ms X some reassurance that it was taking appropriate action. The plan should also have been regularly reviewed, ensuring actions were completed and new ones set, whenever appropriate. The consequence of poor action planning was that communication from Derby Homes was sporadic and often reactive, and this would have provided little assurance to Ms X that it was taking all reasonable steps to improve the situation.
105. As part of its stage one investigation, Derby Homes reviewed a recording made by Ms X which it acknowledged included shouting coming from Ms Y. It subsequently reopened her ASB case and assigned her a new ASB officer. This was an appropriate course of action given the breakdown in the relationship with the previous ASB officers. Additionally, in its stage two response, Derby Homes noted that it had now agreed that Ms X would make recordings by leaving her phone recording while stepping away from the room. It appropriately apologised for not having identified a suitable method of evidence gathering prior to this.
106. In summary, throughout the period of ASB, Derby Homes took a number of appropriate steps towards resolving the ASB reported by Ms X. However, its records repeatedly noted that it had informed Ms X it would be taking no further action due to a lack of evidence. While Ms X eventually found a solution to this, it took a formal complaint for Derby Homes to recognise this as a suitable option going forward. Despite being aware of her vulnerabilities and the difficulties she was facing, it failed to adequately explore other methods for her to provide evidence.
107. These failings would have caused Ms X distress and inconvenience and amount to maladministration in the circumstances. The Housing Ombudsman notes that Ms X is no longer at property A and so is no longer experiencing ASB from Ms Y; however, an amount of £350 compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact that Derby Homes’ failures had on its service delivery.

Housing allocations (LGSCO)

108. Ms X applied for rehousing in April 2021. Her application was accepted, and she was awarded general medical need priority.
109. In July 2021, Derby Homes agreed additional priority to reflect the ASB she was suffering after receiving supporting information from an ASB officer.
110. In June 2022, Ms X told Derby Homes she had been diagnosed with osteoarthritis and the Council reviewed her application. In July 2022, it changed her medical need priority from general to severe.
111. There is no evidence Derby Homes did not award appropriate priority to reflect Ms X’s health needs and the impact of the ASB suffered, nor was there any delay in making those decisions. Derby Homes was not at fault.

Back to top

Action required

HOS orders

112. The Housing Ombudsman orders Derby Homes to pay compensation of £600, comprising:
• £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to Ms X by its failures relating to reasonable adjustments;
• £350 for any distress and inconvenience caused to Ms X by its failures relating to its ASB service delivery.
113. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
114. Within four weeks of the determination, Derby Homes is ordered to contact Ms X by post and confirm the following:
• how long its contact restriction measures will be in place and when they will next be reviewed (should they still be ongoing);
• the medium through which it intends to communicate with her going forward, along with a request for her to notify it of any other reasonable adjustments she requires.
115. The landlord should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

LGSCO agreed action

116. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council, or Derby Homes on its behalf, should apologise to Ms X for uncertainty caused by the failure of Derby Homes to consider arranging an ASB case review or tell her she could request this.
117. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council, or Derby Homes on its behalf, will provide guidance to relevant staff on the importance of considering an ASB case review where the threshold has been met and the complainant is vulnerable. This will include sharing the final decision on this complaint as an example of a case where an ASB review should have been considered. It will also ensure that where an ASB case review is considered, but not progressed, it makes a record of its reasons for not doing so.
118. The Council, or Derby Homes on its behalf, will provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

119. We have completed our investigation. LGSCO has found fault causing personal injustice. LGSCO has recommended action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.
120. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman has found service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its failure to consider making reasonable adjustments regarding its communication with Ms X.
121. Additionally, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding how it handled her reports of ASB by a neighbour.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman