Newcastle City Council (202010082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010082

Newcastle City Council

18 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 lack of support offered by the landlord following the resident witnessing an aggravated burglary opposite her previous property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident had been in residence of the one bedroomed bungalow since 2011 until termination of tenancy in late 2020. The tenancy was managed by the landlord’s (a local authority) Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO). For the purposes of this investigation both the ALMO and landlord in regard to its housing function, will be referred to as the landlord. For all other actions taken by the landlord outside of its housing function, it will be referred to as the local authority, for which the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over.
3. The resident’s vulnerabilities are noted as physical disability, mental health issues and visual impairment.
4. The landlord’s Safeguarding Adults and Children’s policy notes it is responsible for reporting concerns to the relevant agencies such as the local authority’s Adults and Children’s Social Care, the Police and Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARAC).
5. The policy notes as set out in the Care Act, 2014 and related statutory guidance, safeguarding duties apply to an adult (someone who is 18 or over) and has needs for care or support (whether those needs are being met); and is experiencing, or at is at risk of, abuse or neglect; and as a result of those needs is unable to protect themselves against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it. It recognises that abuse, neglect, and exploitation take many forms and may take place deliberate intent, negligence, or ignorance. Multiple forms of abuse can occur simultaneously. This can happen in a family, institution, or community setting, by those known to the individual or, more rarely, by others.

It notes it will work across the organisation and in partnership with external agencies to prevent, respond to and report safeguarding issues. Where a safeguarding risk has been identified, it will work with customers to manage risk, and, where possible, enabling the appropriate level of support accessing resources both internally and externally.

Summary of Events

6. On 4 April 2020, the resident witnessed an aggravated burglary. It is noted that a welfare check was completed following the lockdown and no concerns were raised by the resident.
7. In July, the landlord’s housing team was in contact with the resident and subsequently the police informed it of the burglary. Communications show the landlord liaised with both the police and external agencies in relation to the matter and moving forward the resident’s housing application.
8. In September, there was further communication relating to the resident’s rehousing between the landlord, police, and adult social care team.
9. On 27 November 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that following being a witness to the aggravated burglary there was no support from it in assisting her to be rehoused, communicating with agencies acting on her behalf and lack of communication or follow ups to calls she had made. She noted her rehousing had been largely facilitated by her social worker and the landlord had not assisted or considered her vulnerabilities in order to support her.
10. On 3 December the landlord advised it would be considering the complaint under its formal process.
11. On 5 January 2021, the landlord provided its initial response. It noted in relation to communicating with her it had carried out a welfare check on 23 April 2020 following the lockdown in order to ascertain what support was needed. It noted no issues or concerns were raised by the resident. It noted following conversations with the resident about rehousing and anti-social behaviour in the area, it had contacted its housing and health assessment team in July, who in turn contacted to discuss housing options, including the resident moving outside of the local authority area. It noted that the assessment team should have contacted her to assess her health needs as there was no record of a previous health assessment and doing so would have allowed an appropriate band award, applicable only to the current local authority area.
12. It advised that on 13 July, it had been contacted by the police who informed it of the incident on 4 April and that the resident felt nervous and vulnerable. The police noted referrals had been made to Adult Social Care and it had reviewed safeguarding measures, creating a harm reduction plan. The landlord accepted that whilst its safe living team had also been informed, due to an absence this was not picked up. It clarified that the information had been passed on to the housing team but that as the police had taken the safeguarding matters forward, there was not much else it could do. It however accepted that it would have expected a member of staff to act as a contact to offer emotional support and provide any further referrals that could have assisted. It concluded noting it could have been more proactive in supporting her housing move and easily available to provide help and reassurance.
13. On 19 January, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated, reiterating that the safeguarding team had not supported her. The landlord arranged for a call to discuss the outstanding issues.
14. On 27 January, the landlord responded noting following the conversation with the resident whilst the complaint had been upheld, the resident stated there was no explanation of the support that should have been provided. It noted the resident wanted the landlord to take some responsibility for its lack of action and an explanation; to be reassured that lessons had been learnt from the experience and to be offered compensation for the distress caused by the lack of support.
15. On 3 March, the landlord provided its final response. It noted that the resident’s complaint had been upheld and through its investigation, it noted it had contacted the resident’s social worker to take matters forward, however accepted that it should have contacted the resident directly to advise her of this. It stated it should have provided a named contact to provide emotional support and could have referred her to appropriate agencies like Victim Support, Adult Social Care, and her GP, but was aware that she was already in contact with Adult Social Care and Victim Support. It reiterated its apology for the lack of emotional support, but noted that the resident was in contact with all the appropriate agencies.
16. It advised the action it was taking following learning from the complaint and agreed that compensation was appropriate given that it could have supported the resident better and for the time and trouble and emotional impact. It offered £250 referencing this was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
17. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

18. It is clear the resident sought reassurance that safeguarding is understood by the landlord’s staff. The Ombudsman has had sight of internal records which notes all staff and managers complete mandatory safeguarding training modules and information about safeguarding is included as part of the induction training, with mandatory training being taken every three years. The expectation would therefore have been that the landlord adequately provided this support.
19. Whilst it is clear that the landlord failed to take steps to ensure the resident was adequately supported, it is also clear that the police had acted upon the safeguarding concerns and the resident was in contact with both Adult Social Care and Victim Support. The landlord had also reasonably passed the information to the housing team in relation to the resident’s housing application. The landlord has also apologised for its lack of emotional support during a time which no doubt would have been distressing to the resident. Whilst this is the case the Ombudsman must also consider whether the landlord’s failure to offer emotional support meant the resident was not adequately supported. Given that the landlord works in partnership with both the police and social care, of which the resident was in contact with, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s failure to offer emotional support significantly disadvantaged the resident.
20. The resident also sought that coordinated efforts existed between the landlord and external agencies and that the landlord’s responses were immediate. In line with the landlord’s Safeguarding Adults and Children’s policy, it is responsible for reporting concerns to and working with the relevant agencies and partners. It is clear that the landlord continuously liaised with several teams, agencies, and partners, including the police and the local authority, this was therefore reasonable, but should have been communicated first-hand to the resident.
21. In relation to the landlord’s staff receiving empathy training, the Ombudsman is aware of training which is undertaken by the landlord alongside its commitment to treat everybody fairly, with dignity and respect. As it is clear that the landlord in this instance did not provide the emotional support which would have ensured the resident felt treated fairly and with respect it was paramount that it acknowledged this in considering the complaint and offered redress to the resident.
22. In considering the service failure which had been identified by the landlord and redress offered, the Ombudsman deems that this was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as explained to the resident. This is as the landlord’s lack of emotional support did not adversely affect the resident’s rehousing or support from external agencies and as such the level of compensation offered was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states, ‘At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily’, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for the identified failings.

Reasons

24. The landlord recognised that it had not offered the resident the emotional support it could and should have in line with its policy. It also adequately considered the time and trouble the resident had taken in pursuing the complaint and offered a reasonable level of compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

25. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reoffer the £250 to the resident if it has not already paid this.