Swindon Borough Council (202108577)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108577

Swindon Borough Council

17 February 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 concerns raised by the resident regarding changes made to its sheltered housing services.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant within a sheltered housing scheme run by a local authority. His tenancy began on 8 January 2008, and the property is described as a one bedroom flat sitting within a complex of flats.
3. The landlord’s records show that the resident has accessibility needs and is a wheelchair user.
4. The tenancy agreement makes no mention regarding the provision of Sheltered Housing Officers (or Wardens, as they were previously known).
5. The landlord operates a three stage complaints procedure. This requires it to respond within 10 working days at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two. Where a complaint is escalated to stage two the appropriate Service Director or Head of Service will respond. If the landlord needs additional time to provide a full response, it can send a holding letter advising that it needs an additional 10 working days to provide its full response to the complaint. Should a resident remain dissatisfied they can either appeal to the Tenant Scrutiny Panel who has 20 working days to respond, or refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.
6. The landlord has a Tenant Handbook which states that it will “treat residents as partners and consult with them on any proposed changes within the scheme or management arrangements.”
7. The Tenant Handbook also says that Sheltered Housing Officers will be available Monday to Friday.
8. The landlord has provided a link to a copy of the minutes from the local authority cabinet meeting held on 2 December 2020. (These minutes are publicly available from the council’s website). The minutes show that the changes to the sheltered housing scheme, which included changes to the Sheltered Housing Officer role, were proposed and authorised by members of the Cabinet acting in the capacity of elected council officials. Complaints about the local authority’s decision to amend the way it provides its sheltered housing services are not within the jurisdiction of this Service, as they do not relate to the actions of the council in its role as landlord of the property.
9. Therefore, this investigation is focused on the aspects of the resident’s complaint relating to how the changes being made have affected him personally. Also, whether the landlord in its response to the resident handled the complaint in an appropriate manner.

Summary of Events

10. Between 23 September 2019 and 23 October 2019, consultations with residents took place at all of the affected housing schemes.
11. On 10 December 2020, a letter was sent to residents informing them that there would be changes to the sheltered housing scheme. These changes would see residential Sheltered Housing Officers replaced with non-residential Sheltered Housing Officers.
12. On 23 February 2021, a letter was sent to residents informing them that the changes to the Sheltered Housing Officer (SHO) provision would commence on 1 March 2021. It also included the names and contact details of the SHOs for each residence and a sheet with frequently asked questions and answers.
13. On 1 March 2021, the resident complained to the landlord, as he was unhappy that there would no longer be residential SHOs. He stated that:

1. The change to how SHO services would be provided represented a breach of contract by the landlord.
2. The changes put him and other residents at risk.
3. SHOs were now working across multiple sites rather than working in one place.

14. The landlord’s records indicate that on 8 April 2021 it received a Freedom of Information Request (FOI) from the resident, asking the following questions:

1. Whether a risk assessment had taken place prior to the implementation of the changes to the SHO service and, if so, what were the conclusions?
2. Which professional body carried out the risk assessment?

15. From the evidence seen by this Service, it is unclear on what date the FOI response was sent, but in the response the landlord:

1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the FOI.
2. Stated that a “Diversity Impact Assessment” had been carried out, a copy of which was attached to its letter.
3. Included a link to the Cabinet paper where considerations regarding the changes to the sheltered housing scheme were discussed.

16. On 20 April 2021, the landlord responded in writing to the resident’s complaint saying that:

1. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to respond to the complaint.
2. The changes were approved by the local authority’s Cabinet and the landlord cannot change this.
3. Much of the sheltered housing services that existed prior to the changes remained in place.
4. A feedback system had been established with the Tenants Association for Sheltered Housing (TASH) to review how the changes were working and to raise any urgent safety and welfare issues.

17. On 10 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again to escalate the complaint to stage two, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s initial response. The resident stated that:

1. The landlord had not addressed the point the resident made about there being a breach of contract with regards to the provision of SHO services.
2. Many of the residents had chosen to move into the accommodation because the SHOs were there full time.
3. The landlord had ignored the results of its own consultation which was unacceptable.

18. On 10 June 2021, the landlord sent a written response stating that:

1. Whilst they acknowledged many residents would have seen full time SHOs as an attractive feature, the changes allowed the landlord to deliver the same services more effectively.
2. The new model for offering SHO services had existed at other schemes for some time.
3. The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident does not specify a particular level of service in regard to SHOs.
4. The previous model of sheltered housing provision was funded, in part, from tenants who do not live in, or benefit from, sheltered housing.
5. The landlord undertook visits to all the sheltered housing schemes as part of the consultation process. It also had meetings with TASH, and made changes to take into account the feedback it received.

19. The resident approached this Service on 11 July 2021, to escalate the complaint on the grounds that:

1. The landlord had reduced the SHO services at the sheltered housing scheme.
2. The landlord ignored the results of its consultation.
3. The resident no longer felt safe in his home.
4. His mental health had been affected by the change.
5. The landlord had not answered the questions the resident had asked.

Assessment and findings

20.  The resident initially raised concerns about the SHO changes through his complaint to the landlord on 1 March 2021. He said that changes to SHO service represented a breach of contract by the landlord and also put him and other residents at risk and he no longer felt safe. On 20 April 2021, the landlord replied in writing apologising for delays its response. The landlord explained that the sheltered housing changes were approved by the local authority and why it was unable to amend these. It went into some detail regarding the services that remained in place to address resident safety and explained about a feedback mechanism established with TASH to review how the changes were working and raise any urgent safety or welfare concerns.
21. The landlord’s response was appropriate in as far as it apologised for a minor delay in responding to the resident, it set out the process by which changes had been made and confirmed the measures that had been put in place to address safety and welfare concerns. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to consider the resident’s specific safety concerns albeit the issue the regarding any potential breach of contract was not answered.
22. On 10 May 2021, the resident escalated his complaint, dissatisfied that the point regarding a potential breach of contract had not been addressed and adding a concern about the landlord’s adherence to the consultation outcome. The landlord responded on 10 June 2021, explaining that the tenancy does not specify a particular level of service in regard to SHOs and that, as part of its consultations, it had meetings with TASH and made changes to take into account the feedback it had received. This Service has seen a copy of the tenancy agreement and the Tenant Handbook and notes that neither of those contain any mention of a service level agreement with regards to the provision of SHOs on a residential basis. The landlord’s response on this point was therefore accurate.
23. The Tenants Handbook says on page four that the landlord will ’treat residents as partners and consult with them on any proposed changes within the scheme or management arrangements.’ This means there is an expectation that the landlord will enter into consultation with its residents when there are changes to the sheltered housing scheme. However, there is nothing within its own procedures that say that it must be bound by the results of any consultation undertaken. The consultation notes seen by this Service indicate that residents were given the opportunity to provide feedback to the landlord both prior to, and after, the changes had begun to be implemented. They also show that the resident played an active part in providing his feedback during the consultation process. Given the landlord was not obliged to be bound by its consultation with residents, it was reasonable for it to explain to the resident what steps it had taken to consult and how it had adapted its plans accordingly.
24. In summary, there was a delay in the landlord answering the resident’s concern about whether it was fulfilling its contractual obligations in regards to the provision of SHOs. However, that was rectified through the landlord’s final complaint response where the resident’s concern was addressed. The landlord also demonstrated that it considered and answered the resident’s other concerns about safety and the extent to which it listened to the consultation results. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident was appropriate.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of concerns raised by the resident regarding changes made to its sheltered housing services.

Reasons

26.  The landlord provided reasonable answers to the concerns the resident raised about the changes to the SHO provision, including a potential breach of contract, the measures it had put in place in regards to resident safety and welfare and the extent of its consultations.