Stafford & Rural Homes (201903660)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201903660

Stafford & Rural Homes

10 January 2022

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 concerns about a letter sent to him by the landlord’s chief executive.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident lives in a sheltered accommodation complex and is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord gave the resident a letter from its chief executive on 16 April 2019. In it, the chief executive explained that they had “spoke at some length to your wife on Monday 15 April about events that have taken place recently between yourself and others. It is clear that when something happens all parties can see it differently. However, it is essential that you understand that some of your actions must change for your own and other residents’ comfort.” It asked the resident to refrain from:
   1. “Walking up and down corridors… outside the homes of other residents late evening or during the night
   2. Opening or closing windows in communal areas
   3. Opening or closing fire doors on corridors
   4. Using any form of photography or video equipment of other people’s homes, other residents and/or their relatives
   5. Knocking on other people’s doors…for any reason other than if invited
   6. Posting pictures of residents, their relatives, people’s homes and front doors on any social media site without their express permission.”
4. The landlord explained that it understood the resident’s need to walk around in the evenings, however he needed to go outside to prevent causing concern to other residents. It said it was working to find a solution for him to live comfortably, but the “tenancy requires you to live without creating discomfort or upset to others”, so he would need to adhere to the requests. The events leading up to and referred to in the letter are not clear from the evidence.
5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 May 2019. Although we have not received a copy of this, the letter sent by the landlord in response (on 29 May) explained that the resident had complained that he was unhappy with the letter of 16 May 2021, he did not feel listened to, and felt he was unable to speak to landlord staff members regarding his problems.
6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 May 2019, following a phone call on 20 May and visiting him on 23 May. (46) It stated it would not discuss the chief executive’s letter, as it had already spoken to him at length regarding it. In regard to his other concerns, the landlord explained that it was:

“sorry that you do not feel listened to but I do have to disagree with this point. We have listened to the concerns raised by you and others at the scheme and have tried to gain a better understanding of what is causing incidents through the use of diary sheets, as is the normal procedure when investigating potential anti-social behaviour and/or neighbour nuisance. You have declined to complete these sheets, making it difficult for us investigate your concerns over perceived behaviour towards yourself and [the resident’s wife].

I have myself spent time quite a lot of time talking to you, as have…others, to try and help to resolve your current situation. I am satisfied that Stafford & Rural Homes have spent a significant amount of time listening you although our response will not always be the one you would like to hear, particularly when we have advised that certain behaviours that you have reported do not constitute anti-social behaviour or a breach of tenancy.”

7. The landlord explained that the resident was entitled to speak to different staff members               about general matters, but asked that he should document any concerns about antisocial behaviour or tenancy breaches by other residents using the diary sheets it had provided. It noted that the resident had been recording conversations with staff members without informing them, and because of that it asked that he make any ASB or neighbour nuisance reports by email or letter. It said that it had received three such reports from him, but none of them constituted ASB or nuisance, and so there was nothing it could investigate.
8. An internal note from the landlord on 3 June 2019 stated the resident requested a written response to his complaint.
9. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 June 2019. He explained that he was “Complaining about a letter I received from [the chief executive]. I believe this letter is unreasonable targeting of me and it’s made me a target at my home. doing this letter in an impossibility unreasonable and unjust and I feel this letter is harassment. I believe the situation where I live is a lot worse because I’ve had my wheelchair vandalised as you well know. You have made no attempts to resolve the situation and I feel the situation is intolerable for me and my wife.” 
10. On 13 June 2019, the resident emailed the landlord as he had received its letter of 29 May. He said that while other issues had been discussed in the landlord’s response, it had not addressed the chief executive’s letter of 16 April. He mentioned the vandalism to his wheelchair again, but concluded by stating “the complaint is about the letter sent to me that’s what you should be dealing with”.
11. An internal email on 14 June 2019 stated that the resident’s concerns would be treated a stage one complaint. The landlord sent its response the same day. It explained that the chief executive’s letter was intended to resolve issues between residents, by requesting that the resident stop behaviours in communal areas that made other residents uncomfortable. It said it had reviewed the letter, and did not think it was unfair. It said it would have sent a similar letter to “any customer about whom similar complaints have been received”. The letter was only sent to the resident, and nobody else, it therefore did not agree that the letter made him a target.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 August 2019 as it had been informed he wanted to escalate his complaint. It said he needed to provide evidence of why he did not feel his complaint had been properly considered at stage one, for it to be escalated.
13. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 August 2019 explaining he was still not happy with the restrictions placed upon him within the letter, and he felt the landlord would not discuss the issue.
14. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 8 August 2019 acknowledging his request to escalate the complaint to stage two. It asked that he send evidence to support his escalation by 16 August 2019, otherwise the complaint would be closed.
15. The resident sent a letter (undated) that the landlord received on 16 August 2019, stating he wanted the complaint to be escalated to stage two as he felt “the issue had been ignored”.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 August 2019. It explained that stating as no new evidence had been provided it did not believe the resident’s complaint “warranted further investigation”. It explained that the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, and referred him to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

17. The landlord’s complaint policy states:
    1. “Stage 0 complainants generally express dissatisfaction about a service or suggest an improvement. These issues will be dealt with informally.”
    2. A formal stage one complaint is raised if it cannot be solved at stage zero. It will be acknowledged within one working day, and a response time will be agreed.
    3. To escalate to stage two complainants are required to provide evidence that all issues have not been addressed at stage one.
18. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it encourages residents to “Work with us to resolve disputes/issues, e.g. completing diary sheets, providing witness statements attending court etc”.
19. The ASB policy also states that the landlord will “take appropriate action against anyone who behaves in an unacceptable manner”, but the policy also allows that “SARH will not consider low level disagreements between neighbours as ASB where there is no breach of tenancy or lease.”
20. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
21. Although the specific details of the events leading to the chief executive’s letter are not apparent, the landlord explained the reasons for placing restrictions on the resident both within the letter itself and in the stage one response. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take appropriate action if a resident behaves in an unacceptable manner; it is at the landlord’s discretion to determine if a resident’s behaviour is causing distress to other residents and consequently implement relevant and proportionate resolutions, which, in this case it set out in the chief executive’s letter. On the face of it, most of the requests made of the resident within the letter were not unreasonable (the only unclear one being not to open or close communal windows), and, significantly, no specific reasons were provided by the resident as to why the requests were unreasonable, other than that he disagreed, and was unhappy about them.
22. The landlord’s explanation that the issues reported by the resident were not considered to be ASB, and its request that he document any ASB incidents using diary sheets were reasonable, because they reflected the landlord’s policy and procedures, were decisions within the landlord’s discretion to make, and were relevant to the matter at hand, i.e. the ASB and nuisance the resident had reported he was experiencing.
23. When a resident expresses dissatisfaction with its service the landlord must ensure it communicates with them and addresses all of their concerns. In response to the resident’s letter of complaint on 20 May 2019, the landlord called and visited him, before issuing a written response on 29 May 2019. This was a reasonable timeframe. Although the substantive issue of the complaint (the chief executive’s letter) was not addressed within the letter on 29 May 2019, this was an informal response (stage zero), and the complaint had not yet been raised at stage one. Accordingly, it was not unreasonable for the landlord not to consider the letter, as it believed the matter had already been adequately dealt with. Once the resident said he remained dissatisfied the landlord proceeded to formally investigate his complaint and respond in full.
24. The resident sent emails expressing his dissatisfaction with how the complaint was being handled on 3 June 2019, 11 June and 13 June. The landlord issued its stage one response on 14 June 2019, which is in line with this Service’s complaint handing framework which states stage one complaints should receive a response within ten working days. It was also reasonable for the landlord to wait until the stage zero response had been received (on 13 June 2019) to escalate the complaint.
25. The landlord’s stage one response focused on the complaint regarding the chief executive’s letter. That was reasonable, because while the resident had referred to other issues in his correspondence (such as damage to his wheelchair), he had emphasised that his complaint centred on his unhappiness with the chief executive’s letter. In response to the resident’s requests to further escalate his complaint the landlord sent several requests for the resident to provide evidence or information to support his request. The resident did not provide any, except that he did not believe his concerns had been addressed. In the absence of new evidence or information the landlord’s subsequent decision not to escalate the complaint further was therefore reasonable, and in line with its complaint policy.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint. 

Reasons

27. The landlord responded promptly and reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the chief executive’s letter to him.