Places for People Homes Limited (201915088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915088

Places for People Homes Limited

23 December 2021

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 landlord’s decision to restrict contact with the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The landlord’s Behaviour Policy notes the dictionary definition of unreasonable behaviour is – “ Actions that are beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness” Examples of unreasonable behaviour are not limited or restricted to demanding responses within an unreasonable time-scale; repeatedly contacting or insisting on speaking to a particular member of staff who is not directly dealing with the matter; excessive telephone calls, emails or letters; sending duplicate correspondence requiring a response to more than one member of staff;  persistent refusal to accept explanations or decisions and continuing to contact without presenting new and relevant information; aggressive or abusive behaviour.
3. Violence or abuse towards staff is unreasonable and the organisation has a Zero Tolerance approach to such behaviour in order to protect the welfare and safety of all staff. Violence is not restricted to acts of aggression that may result in physical harm. It also includes behaviour or language (whether oral or written) that may cause staff to feel afraid, threatened, harassed, or abused.
4. Early intervention will be used to deal with unreasonable behaviour in order to de-escalate a situation. It will send the Help Us To Help You letter. This letter will contain words of advice and a warning that contact may be restricted, or further action taken should the behaviour continue.
5. The decision to formally restrict an individual’s contact with the organisation will only be taken after careful consideration. Wherever possible, the individual will be given the opportunity to modify their behaviour or actions before a decision is taken and the Help Us To Help You Letter will be sent where appropriate. However, in extreme cases action may be taken without prior notice to that individual in order to protect staff were necessary.
6. Restrictions can enforce different measures including arranging for a single, named member of staff to deal with all future calls or correspondence from the individual. There will be a review period after 12 months in order to give the individual the opportunity to moderate their behaviour. This period may be extended if there are further incidents of unreasonable behaviour or a serious incident.
7. An individual may appeal the restriction. The reviewing manager should advise the individual in writing that either the restricted contact arrangements still apply, or a different course of action has been agreed. This process should be carried out within 20 working days of the appeal request being received

Summary of events

8. In March 2019 the resident reported the poor condition of the communal area at the rear of the block to the landlord. The landlord sent letters to all residents in September and items were removed, however one resident relocated items to under the resident’s bedroom window, obstructing his access. The resident continuously discussed the matter with the landlord noting as per his tenancy agreement he had a right of access to the window forming part of his property. He requested clarification on what rights residents had to store items in communal areas.
9. There was further communication between the landlord and resident, and it is agreed by both parties that the resident contacted various members o staff rephrasing his questions in order to get answers. The landlord advised that it had responded to his queries and would not discuss the matters any further. The resident went on to criticize the landlord’s handling of the matter, using terminology which the landlord deemed ‘derogatory and untrue’. The resident advised that he was referring to the landlord’s performance and his statements were not a personal attack on the member of staff concerned.
10. On 20 December 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that the number of emails and letters received between November and December was excessive, and his contact had become unreasonable. It stated the resident had:
    1. Continued to raise the same or similar matters, without presenting any new and relevant information
    2. Sent duplicate correspondence requiring a response to more than one member of staff
    3. Persistently emailed, adding further issues to his formal complaint
    4. Made derogatory or untrue comments regarding a member of staff.
11. The landlord explained that this letter was in line with its Behaviour policy to advise resident’s when their contact was becoming unreasonable and/or excessive.
12. The resident notes that he did not receive this letter, but later in December, he emailed the landlord apologising for the language he had used in describing the landlord.
13. In January 2020, the landlord responded to the resident thanking him for his apology regarding the language he had used in his previous correspondence, noting it would pass the apology on to the member of staff concerned. The resident provided the landlord with a copy of his police witness statement which referred to the recording of the incident with his neighbour. He explained that he was not responsible for the incident as the recording proved.
14. Also in January, the landlord issued a letter to the resident restricting contact with it by appointing a single point of contact, for 12 months. It noted that in accordance with its Behaviour policy, the volume of contact by the resident was unreasonable. It referred the resident to its previous letter dated 20 December 2019. It explained that the level of contact relating to communal issues, actions taken by its staff and the incident between the resident and his neighbour was unreasonable, as no new information was presented in the communications. The resident appealed the decision and advised he had never received the previous letter and the landlord provided a copy
15. In February, the resident apologised for how he had communicated with the landlord, but noted he was trying to prove his innocence. The resident did however use language which the landlord deemed unacceptable. The resident requested  a copy of the landlord’s Behaviour Policy. The resident also contacted the Ombudsman relaying the history of events. He noted that he had appealed the landlord’s assertion that his behaviour was unreasonable, yet his contact remained restricted. There is communication between the parties noting that emails had not been received by the resident’s single point of contact and the landlord and he was advised he would receive a response shortly.
16. In March, two days before its appeal response, the landlord provided the resident with a copy of its Behaviour policy. It reiterated the points made in its December and January letter. In the appeal response, the landlord noted the resident had sent 29 emails in one month and had been advised the issues would be responded to as a stage 1 formal complaint. It confirmed this had been done on 29 November 2019, with a further update sent on 3 January 2020. It noted some of the unacceptable language used by the resident in his communications.
17. The landlord accepted that some emails contained new evidence relating to the incident between him and his neighbour, but overall, it was satisfied that the repetitive nature of his emails warranted the December letter being sent, in line with its policy. However, the landlord accepted that the letter did not give specific details of its concerns or actions the resident could take to modify his contact. It apologised for the standard of the letter. It highlighted that following the December letter, the resident sent approximately 16 emails and a decision was taken to restrict contact, with the resident informed on 15 January 2020. It advised following this the resident had sent 25 emails.
18. The landlord confirmed whilst it could have been clearer of the action expected by the resident, the restriction was reasonable. It noted the restriction could be lifted if it was satisfied that an understanding had been reached with the resident. It explained whilst its focus was solely on the contact restriction, it was willing to discuss and resolve the main issues- the incident with the neighbour. It is accepted by the resident that he increased his written communications with the landlord on the matter, but the landlord stopped engaging with him.
19. In April, the landlord further reviewed the contact restriction in place advising it had continued to receive excessive and repetitive correspondence from the resident to various departments, even after it had assigned a single point of contact. It explained that the resident had continued making ‘rude and insulting’ remarks. It noted that to safeguard its staffs’ wellbeing, it had appointed a different single point of contact. It advised the resident was limited to 2 emails or 2 call per week, but could still report repairs or enquire about his rent through its customer service centre. It advised the restriction would remain in place for one year and would be reviewed the following April.
20. There was further communication in relation to other matters and the resident continued to raise his dissatisfaction about the restriction, responses were provided in July and September, however the resident persisted with contacting the landlord on 3,12,16,17, 20, 27 and 29 September 2020. The landlord responded on 14 September and 1 October.
21. The resident again continued to repeat matters and the landlord responded a final time on 20 October noting whilst the resident had exhausted the complaints process, it had looked through the files and as it had not held a copy of the correspondence it stated it had sent on the 19 November 2019, it was withdrawing a reference to this. It noted as he had not received its December 2019 warning letter, it was fair that he had not been given warning of the decision to restrict contact. However, it noted that following letters dated 27July and 1 September 2020 which addressed the issues. The resident had continued to send excessive correspondence, rude and abusive correspondence and correspondence persistently sent to various people and teams containing the same or similar information. It noted the effect on the wellbeing of its staff and whilst the resident had been requested to stop, he had continued. It advised it would not be accepting any further correspondence on the matter and the resident could approach this Service.
22. The resident accepts that since January 2020, he has written and emailed the landlord on numerous occasions in relation to the restriction.

Assessment and findings

23. While the resident has advised that he received no warning prior to his contact being restricted and neither was he given the opportunity to appeal the decision, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord sent the initial letter as per its policy and then provided the resident with an opportunity to review the decision.
24. The landlord did accept in its March letter that the initial December letter did not give the resident specific information, moreover what action he could take to avoid the policy being invoked, however, the resident was aware that he had sent excessive amounts of correspondence to several landlord staff and accepted that some of the language used, whilst not personal, criticised members of staff in relation to their roles. The landlord also further accepted that as the resident stated he had not received its initial letter, it was fair to state he had not been warned. This was reasonable of the landlord.
25. However, while the resident advised he had not received the initial letter, even as late as December 2020 he continued sending what can be considered excessive and abusive email correspondence. This was on top of being advised that all correspondence should be in writing or by telephone with no more than 2 telephone calls or 2 letters per week. As such the resident actively chose to ignore the landlord’s warnings. As such it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord had reasonably warned the resident, but he failed to adhere to its instructions and implementation of the restriction was reasonable in the circumstances.
26. While the resident states he continued to make contact due to the landlord accusing him of causing the altercation between him and his neighbour, the Omudsman has seen no evidence where the landlord states that the resident was responsible for the incident. Therefore, the Ombudsman does not agree that the restriction was instigated on this basis.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s contact.

Reasons

28. The landlord raised concerns about the resident’s’ behaviour and allowed its decision to restrict contact be reviewed. The resident however continued to exhibit the same behaviour which was of concern and the landlord acted in line with its Behaviour policy.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

29. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord, when issuing an initial warning that contact may be restricted, provide a copy of its Behaviour policy so residents are aware of the expectations and also the steps available to them.