Jigsaw Homes Tameside (202106221)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106221

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

17 August 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports, and allegations made against him.
2. Response to the resident’s previous concerns over staff conduct.
3. Decision not to consider various new complaints.
4. Decision to impose contact restrictions on the resident.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39 (d) and (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports, and allegations made against him.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s previous concerns over staff conduct.
Paragraph 39 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that this Service will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
Landlord records show it first responded to a complaint from the resident regarding its handling of his ASB reports on 16 January 2019. In correspondence with the resident, and after requesting clarification on the outstanding issues, this Service has not established any new incidents which have not already been considered by the landlord and the concerns raised appear to be historic. As around two and a half years have passed since the landlord provided a response to the resident’s original complaint, and in the absence of this Service being aware of any reason why the resident could not have brought the matter to the attention of this Service previously, this aspect of the complaint is ruled outside of jurisdiction in accordance with Paragraph 39 (d).
Paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that this Service will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. Records indicate the landlord declined to accept a complaint from the resident regarding staff conduct as the incidents he referred to had occurred over six months previously. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to apply its complaints policy in this way and this Service therefore considers this aspect of the resident’s complaint also falls outside of jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a Housing Association. He has resided in the property, a three-bedroom house, since 2004.
Section 3.3 of the landlord’s complaints policy (‘Exclusions’) outlines the circumstances under which it “will not normally accept a formal complaint or parts of a complaint”. These circumstances include:
1. “Complaints that have previously been fully investigated”.
2. “Where (residents) have exchausted another Group Policy and had the opportunity for independent review through appeal”. The landlord’s Unreasonable Behaviour Policy is given as an example of this.
3. “Where the issue took place more than six months ago”.
4. “Complaints which are being pursued in an unreasonable manner including frivolous or vexatious complaints”.
The landlord’s complaints policy states if it does decide not to accept a resident’s complaint, it will “always explain our decisions and signpost you to an appropriate service or team to progress the matter in a suitable way”.
The landlord has an Unacceptable Behaviour Policy. Section 8 of the policy outlines that it may impost contact restrictions on residents when it deems their behaviour is “likely to have a negative impact” on the organisation and/or its service. It states it will advise residents why it is considering imposing restrictions and will “give them the opportunity to modify their actions or behaviour”.
The pollcy notes that, where the policy is applied, residents will be informed in writing, given the reasons for the restrictions and details of the restricted contact arrangements. These can be imposed for a maximum of 12 months before being reviewed and Section 9 of the policy outlines that residents have the right of appeal, which will be considered by a “senior manager not involved in the original decision”. A decision should then be made within 21 days.

Summary of Events

On 31 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding his “request to open a new complaint” following a phone call held on 22 March 2021. In its letter, the landlord advised it would not be accepting new complaints from the resident regarding staff conduct and its handling of ASB reports, explaining it considered both complaints were “excluded from our Complaints Policy under section 3.3”.
Regarding staff conduct, the landlord advised the three incidents referred to by the resident were variously excluded from its policy due to: the length of time since the incident took place (the resident was allegedly told to put the phone down during a call that took place three years earlier); not having enough information to investigate the issue, and it was likely to have occurred over six months earlier (unspecified “correspondence” from a named member of staff, who landlord records indicated had not written to the resident or his partner since March 2020); and having already investigated the complaint previously (relating to another phone call from March 2020.
Regarding its handling of ASB reports, the landlord advised his concerns regarding reported bias shown towards another resident, and a delay in providing correspondence from its Neighbourhood Safety team, had been referred to that team to look into as they were the relevant team to respond. It clarified it believed the concerns raised were therefore excluded from its complaints policy.
Records show the landlord wrote to the resident again on 26 April 2021, following a further phone call wherein the resident had requested a new complaint be opened. In its letter the landlord referred to further calls made at the beginning of April 2021 in which a member of staff mistakenly suggested to the resident that he was currently subject to contact restrictions. It outlined the enquiries it had made and clarified it was satisfied it had “fully investigated and responded to” the resident’s concerns “outside of the complaints process as dissatisfaction of service, which has now been clarified” and that the issue was excluded from its Complaints Policy.
Regarding the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of ASB, the landlord noted that concerns over alleged favouritism or bias towards another resident had been responded to fully via a previous complaint. Regarding delayed correspondence from the Neighbour Safety team, the landlord noted that a letter had been re-sent at the request of a member of the resident’s household, which explained why the letter was dated from six months earlier. It clarified that this issue had also now been investigated and responded to outside of the complaints process and was therefore excluded from its Complaints Policy.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise it had decided to impose contact restrictions on him in line with its Unreasonable Behaviour Policy. It noted the resident had made “a number of calls…which are considered unreasonably persistent about issues we consider have already been responded to satisfactorily”. It advised this was having a “negative effect on (its) resources” and impacted on its ability to assist other residents.
The landlord stated the resident’s “tone and conduct during calls with us is considered challenging and on occasions intimidating”. It noted it had sent the resident letters confirming its position and warning him it was considering imposing contact restrictions on 11 March 2021 and19 April 2021 and also did so during a phone call on 21 April 2021 but that despite this, the resident had “continued to contact (us) about matters…previously responded to or made calls that lack any serious purpose or value”.
The landlord provided examples of the occasions when it considered the resident’s conduct had been unreasonable and conformed there were eight conditions in which he was restricted from contacting it, including:
1. Future contact must be “new request for service or information and not about matters we have previously responded to”.
2. Calls must be restricted to one per week, “unless it is an urgent matter or an emergency”.
3. The landlord would not agree to demands from the resident to only speak with specific staff and it would consider legal action if the resident continued to refer to certain members of staff “in a derogatory or offensive manner”.
4. The landlord would not respond to complaints which it considered had already been responded to.
It clarified the restrictions would in place for twelve months before being reviewed at the end of that period. It stated that, following the review, it would notify the resident in writing of any further actions it decided to take. It also notified the resident he had the right of appeal and provided details on how to do so.
Following this, the resident submitted an appeal to the landlord over its decision. The landlord wrote to him on 18 May 2021 to acknowledge his request before it responded on 9 June 2021. In its response it advised the appeal had been considered by a senior manager not involved in the original decision. The landlord noted the following:
1. It had considered the resident’s contact over the previous three months and noted he had also had contact restrictions imposed on him on “two previous occasions” over the last 18 months. However, the resident had “reverted to your previous patterns of contact” once the restrictions had been removed.
2. It noted the resident’s contact was “often…expressing anger or frustration rather than a genuine request for service” and “some of the contact you have had with our staff has been unacceptable”. It provided examples of the behaviour it considered to be unacceptable, which included calling staff liars, repeatedly asking to speak to staff who were not dealing with the issue under discussion and “setting out charges you will impose whilst operatives carry out repairs in your home”.
3. It concluded that the resident’s contact had had “a negative effect on our resources” and therefore contact restrictions would remain in place. It reiterated the conditions set out in its original letter and noted it would consider “further actions which may include legal injunctions” if the resident continued to contact it in the same way.
On 16 June 2021, the resident contacted this Service to advise he had contacted the landlord to complaint about previous ASB he had experienced, and actions taken against him by the landlord. He also raised concerns over staff conduct and contact restrictions thar had been placed upon him. Following the resident’s contact, this Service wrote to the landlord to ask for an update on its position and for it to investigate the resident’s complaints if it had not yet done so.
The landlord responded to this Service on 23 June 2021 to advise it had not accepted the resident’s complaint regarding its decision to impose contact restrictions on him because it “did not fall within the scope of the complaints policy”. It stated the resident had been given an explanation for this and that other complaints he had raised had already exhausted complaints procedure.
Following further correspondence with this Service, in an email sent on 15 July 2021, the resident outlined the issues he either considered outstanding or that he believed the landlord had not responded to. These included:
1. A named member of staff being rude to him during a phone call made in January 2021.
2. Why the landlord deemed it acceptable for staff to swear at him.
3. Why the landlord transferred his calls to a specific member of staff, and why the landlord had found that that member of staff had “done no wrong”, although the resident did not specify the failing he believed had occurred.
4. Why there was a six-month delay in receiving a letter regarding ASB (it is assumed this related to the letter re-sent by the landlord’s Neighbourhood Team, referred to above).
Records show the landlord wrote a further letter to the resident on 22 July 2021 in relation his complaint regarding its attempts to carry out an inspection at his address, specifically in his garden. It advised it would not conduct further investigation of the matter as, in line with its Complaints Policy, it would not consider complaints that were “being pursued in an unreasonable manner”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision not to consider various new complaints

Letters sent from the landlord to the resident, indicate that other than the resident’s historic concerns raised about staff conduct that have been ruled outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, the resident made further complaints about staff conduct during phone calls with the landlord. While this Service has not seen details of the calls between the resident and landlord, the landlord has referred to the calls within its letters and its version of events does not appear to have been contested by the resident.
Records indicate the resident raised concerns in April 2021 about a member of the landlord’s staff initially mistakenly suggesting he was subject to contact restriction. The landlord responded by letter on 26 April 2021 to advise that, having made initial enquiries regarding the incident, it would not open a new complaint as it was excluded from its Complaints Policy.
As noted above, it advised it had made enquiries regarding the phone call, including listening to the calls made by the resident on 9 April 2021. It apologised to the resident for any distress caused by the call centre member of staff initially stating that they thought the resident still had a single point of contact arrangement in place before checking and confirming this was not the case. The landlord clarified that there were no restrictions in place and advised both the staff member and their supervisor had been spoken to and made aware of the resident’s concerns. It advised it had “fully investigated” the call and responded to the resident’s concerns “outside of the complaints process as dissatisfaction of service”, which it stated had now “been clarified”. It cited section 3.3 of its complaints policy and advised the complaint had been excluded under its policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it may not consider complaints where residents are “telling us about a problem for the very first time” and that, in those case, it will try to “resolve first expressions of dissatisfaction as informal complaints outside of this (complaints) policy”. While the Ombudsman considers it is preferable to provide a formal response to residents’ complaints wherever possible, the landlord was entitled to exclude the resident’s complaint under the terms of its policy. It is also noted that, despite excluding the complaint, the landlord acted reasonably by still provide a response outside of its complaints process, which included making reasonable enquiries and offering the resident an apology. This was appropriate and meant that it still treated the resident fairly and tried to show it took his concern seriously, despite deciding it would not treat the matter as a formal complaint.
Regarding the resident’s request to open a new complaint concerning his ASB reports, the landlord’s letter of 26 April 2021 further advised it would not accept the complaint. It clarified the resident’s complaints regarding reported bias towards another resident and actions the landlord had taken against him had already been investigated and would not be re-investigated. Regarding a letter that had been sent by its Neighbourhood Team but dated six months earlier, the landlord clarified the reasons the letter had been re-sent. It further advised this matter had also been responded to outside of its complaints policy as a “dissatisfaction of service” and was therefore excluded from its complaints policy.
In this instance it would also perhaps have been preferable for the landlord to have issued a formal response which, given the apparent circumstances of the case, need not necessarily have been any more detailed than the response it did provide outside of its complaints policy. However, the landlord was entitled to exclude the complaint under the terms of its policy as stated in paragraph 29 above. Given the nature of the concern raised, and that the landlord gave a reasonable explanation of what had happened, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no obvious detriment caused to the resident by the landlord not treating the matter as a formal complaint.
It is also noted that, after contacting this Service, the resident contacted the landlord again on 22 July 2021 to raise a concern about an inspection of a tree in his garden, which the landlord had attended at the resident’s request. Although the resident has not raised the issue of the landlord rejecting this complaint to this Service, this investigation has considered the matter. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day to advise it would not carry out further enquiries, stating it saw “no merit in further investigation of this incident”. It again cited its complaints policy and advised it had the right to refuse complaints it felt were “being pursued in an unreasonable manner”.
As with the other instances covered above, even though it advised it was not accepting the complaint, the landlord provided a short response and explanation of its position. This was a reasonable step for it to take and showed it had still given some consideration to the concerns raised. It was entitled to rely on the terms of its complaints policy when it declined to accept the resident’s complaint and it acted appropriately by providing its reasons, in line with its policy.

The landlord’s decision to impose contact restrictions on the resident

Records show the landlord wrote to the resident in May 2021 advising him of its decision to impose contact restrictions due to his contact with its service. In line with its policy, it had written to him previously, warning him it was considering imposing restrictions. This was reasonable and, in line with Section 8 of its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy, it acted fairly by giving the resident the opportunity to consider its concerns and change his behaviour. However, landlord records indicate the resident subsequently advised he would not be heeding its advice and, as the landlord considered his behaviour had not changed, it was entitled to decide to proceed to impose restrictions in line with its policy.
The landlord’s letter clearly outlined the reasons it had made the decision and provided examples of the behaviour it considered to be unacceptable. It also clearly outlined the restrictions it had imposed, which included “we will not respond to requests for formal complaints that we are satisfied we have previously responded to”. It also advised how long the restrictions would be in place for before it would review the situation (twelve months). This was reasonable and all in line with its policy. It also acted appropriately by clearly advising the resident of how he could appeal its decision, which he duly did.
Once the resident had requested an appeal against the landlord’s contact restrictions, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the request, assigning the appeal to a senior manager as per its procedures, and by providing the resident with its final decision within the timescale set out in its policy.
It is noted that in his initial correspondence with this Service in June 2022, one of the complaints the resident raised was regarding the landlord’s decision to impose contact restrictions on him. However, this Service has not seen evidence the resident brought a complaint regarding this to the landlord within six months of its decision to impose restrictions. Additionally, even if he had, it is of note that the landlord’s complaints policy specifically excludes complaints regarding issues which have already “exhausted another Group Policy” and gives its Unreasonable Behaviour Policy as an example of this. If it did receive a complaint from the resident regarding this, which this Service has not seen, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord would have been entitled to rely on its complaints policy and decline to consider the complaint.
In correspondence with this Service, the landlord has confirmed that the contact restrictions had been reviewed during a meeting with the resident in July 2022 and the restrictions were extended until October 2022. This is appropriate and indicates the landlord continued to act in line with its policy by reviewing the restrictions, although it is of concern that there does appear to have been a delay of around two months from May 2022 when the restrictions were due for review, and the date of the meeting with the resident, which the landlord did not provide an explanation for.
However, while this Service understands the resident will have been unhappy at the landlord’s initial decision to impose contact restrictions on him, from the information available, the landlord acted reasonably during the process. There is no evidence its decision, or how it reached it, treated resident unfairly or that it did not act in line with its policies and procedures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s:
1. Decision not to consider various new complaints.
2. Decision to impose contact restrictions on the resident.
In accordance with Paragraphs 39 (d) and (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are ruled outside of jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports, and allegations made against him.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s previous concerns over staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord was entitled to rely on its complaints policy when deciding not to accept new complaints from the resident which were regarding issues it had already considered, or otherwise fell within categories excluded from its complaints policy. It provided the resident with explanations for its decisions and still provided a response to concerns he raised, even if it did so outside of its complaints procedures.
The landlord acted in line with its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy when it considered imposing contact restrictions on the resident and provided him with warnings before its final decision. It gave the resident appropriate information regarding its decision and his appeal rights, which it then conducted promptly. It also reviewed the restrictions once they had been in place for twelve months.