Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202210991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210991

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

29 November 2023

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 concerns the following:
1. The support provided to the resident as part of the licence agreement.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about staff behaviour.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports.
4. The landlord’s decision to permanently ban the resident’s partner from visiting the scheme.
5. The landlord’s handling of personal data.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In this case the resident has complained that the landlord breached the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) when it provided a warning letter to another resident that contained details regarding her daughter and a recent incident. The resident also received a warning letter addressed to another resident.
Complaints regarding breaches of GDPR are dealt with by the Information Commissioner and this element of the complaint will not therefore form part of this investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42 K which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall property within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.

Background and summary of events

The resident became the licensee of a studio flat on the third floor as part of a supported housing scheme. The scheme helped 16–25-Year-olds nominated by the local authority, who needed both housing and support in accessing training and/or further education and employment. The licence agreement stated that the supported housing facility was designed to be provided for a maximum period of two years. The resident’s licence agreement started on 14 June 2021 when the resident was pregnant with her first child.
An incident occurred on 6 June 2022 when a resident from a neighbouring room was arguing with a visitor and woke the resident, her partner and baby in the early hours of the morning. The resident’s partner became involved, and the police were called. The resident has described feeling threatened by the behaviour of the neighbour.
On 9 June 2022 the Scheme Manager met with the resident and their follow-on letter sets out that CCTV footage had been viewed and witness statements taken. As a result, a warning was given to the resident regarding her behaviour and that of her partner, which, the letter stated, was a breach of the licence agreement. The partner was removed from the authorised visitor list and was no longer allowed entry to the Scheme.
The resident raised concerns that she was being treated differently from other residents as her reports regarding general noise levels within the block had not been dealt with. The Scheme Manager acknowledged that this had been raised before and stated that she had asked the resident to complete an ASB report, but no reports had been submitted. The resident was asked to complete the form for any future noise issues.
The partner telephoned the Scheme and expressed his concern regarding the welfare of the resident and their baby, given that the neighbour had tried to open their studio door. He asked that someone more senior than the Scheme Manager call him back. The resident also raised her concerns that she and her partner had been treated unfairly by the issuing of the warning and the visitor ban.
The landlord undertook a review of the evidence, including the witness statements, and CCTV footage. It noted that the police had decided not to press charges but found that the conduct of the resident and her partner was unacceptable and warranted the warning and visitor ban. Having viewed the evidence the senior manager was satisfied that the actions were proportionate and sought to consider the needs and safety of the residents at the Scheme.
The resident submitted a complaint on 10 June 2022 explaining that she did not feel supported by the Scheme Manager as her support worker and requested that the allocated worker be changed. She stated that the Scheme Manager had lied to her regarding an email from the Police, and that the Police were closing the case against her partner as they had concluded it was self-defence. She also reported having been told that the staff were not there to safeguard her and her child, but rather to look after the building. The resident raised concerns that her complaints about noise and cannabis use had been ignored.
The complaint was acknowledged on 13 June 2022 and a meeting arranged with the resident and her sister to discuss the allegations. The landlord wrote to the resident following this to confirm it would need a little longer to complete its investigation and would send its response by 11 July 2022.
A further incident took place on 26 June 2022 with the police being called to an altercation outside the block involving the resident’s partner. The landlord was concerned that the level of aggression exhibited posed a risk to the resident and others living at the Scheme. A second warning letter was sent to the resident regarding a breach of the licence agreement and a safeguarding referral was made to social services.
The landlord sent its response to the complaint at stage one of the complaints process on 7 July 2022. This made the following findings:
1. Support – there was a lack of evidence of previous plans which supported the resident’s contention that she had not received regular support sessions and records were not maintained. Although there was some evidence of support sessions being refused by the resident, this element of the complaint was upheld, and an apology given.
2. Allegations of cannabis use – this complaint was partially upheld. The landlord explained the evidential difficulties it had experienced in tracing the perpetrator and getting the Police to act. The resident was asked to complete an ASB report in future.
3. Complaints about Scheme Manager – an explanation of confidentiality was given as to why some information was withheld from the resident. The letter stated that the Scheme Manager had a duty of care to inform social services when there were concerns and neither element of the complaint was upheld. The letter did, however, confirm that warning letters had been sent to incorrect recipients. It confirmed that the Scheme Manager had been spoken to regarding this and apologised for the error.
4. Action against the resident’s partner – the letter confirmed that the email from the Police had been viewed and that they had confirmed that the incident of 6 June would not be treated as a priority. The landlord confirmed that the full details of this email could not be shared though as it contained information regarding others. The letter explained that regardless of the Police outcome, it was appropriate for the Scheme to ban the partner as a result of his behaviour. This approach was set out in the visitor policy and licence agreement. The letter also noted that there had been a further incident of unacceptable behaviour since the ban was issued. This element of the complaint was not upheld.
5. Rent and service charge – the letter partially upheld this element of the complaint and acknowledged that there had been delays in providing details to the resident. An apology was given, along with the correct information.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 7 July 2022.
A further meeting took place on 18 July 2022, although this revisited some of the areas within the complaint, it was not linked to the formal complaint process. Following this meeting, the resident approached her MP and explained that she felt stuck at the Scheme without a clear plan for move on. She detailed the issues raised in her complaint to the landlord. The MP contacted the landlord on 22 July 2022 forwarding the complaint. The MP’s office chased for a response on 8 August 2022.
The landlord’s response at stage two was sent on 19 August 2022. This dealt with the following:
1. The lack of written/regular support meetings – the letter agreed with the findings made at stage one and made further recommendations regarding the recording of support plans. It noted that even though notes were now being made, the resident still did not have a clear view of her support plan and the actions that she needed to work on to lead to a move on nomination. This had been raised with the team and the support plan was to be reviewed to ensure that this was made clear.
2. The Scheme Manager’s report to social services regarding the resident’s supervision of her child – the letter confirmed that the Scheme Manager had been interviewed and there was no evidence of any malicious intent. The letter stated that there was an active Child in Need protection case open and as such there was a requirement on the Scheme team to report any information that was relevant to her support as part of its duty of care.
3. Antisocial behaviour – the letter confirmed that the investigation had included speaking to staff who had confirmed that when the resident was asked for details of the antisocial behaviour, she was not willing/able to provide the required documentation. However, since the stage one response, noise nuisance reports have been made in the correct format and the outcome of the investigation had been sent to the resident. The letter went on to describe how the resident could contact staff if there was no response from the intercom.
4. Ban on visitors – The letter explained that there was a slight delay in the resident being informed of the outcome of the investigation due to all parties needing to be interviewed, and one of them being away from the Scheme. The CCTV footage had been viewed and showed an aggressive assault. In addition, the resident had acknowledged that there was a heated exchange with reception staff. This left staff feeling at risk which was not acceptable. The letter explained that the visitor’s policy did not operate at the same burden of proof as the police. The visitor policy and licence agreement would still apply, even though the police had decided not to pursue a criminal case. This element of the complaint was not upheld.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to the Ombudsman. The ban on her partner was lifted on 19 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

Support

The resident complained that since moving in there had been no clear plan in place to support her moving towards move-on accommodation. She stated that support meetings did not take place regularly and no clear records or objectives were shared with her. The landlord upheld this element of the complaint as its investigation did not find any clear records of support meetings and plans.
It was a condition of the licence that the resident required support and assistance and that she accept, engage with, and cooperate fully, with the landlord. The licence agreement stated “Because the provision of support is fundamental to the Licence, it shall be regarded as a breach of the Licence if your refuse to accept, engage or fully co-operate with the support service otherwise fail to comply with the Support Agreement.
The overall aim of the support was to assist and equip residents towards move on accommodation. Given that the provision of the support was fundamental to the licence it was a serious concern that one year into the resident’s two-year occupancy neither she, nor the landlord, were able to identify any clear objectives set out in a support plan.
Throughout the complaint to the landlord, the MP and the Ombudsman, the resident has explained that she struggled to know what was required from her to move forward. She gave the example of being told if she cleared arrears on her rent account she would be nominated, but when these were cleared was told that due to the incident with her partner she would not be nominated. It is difficult to see how the resident could be following a support plan and working towards moving on, when there is no evidence of such plans, or records of weekly meetings.
As the support was a fundamental part of the occupancy agreement it was not appropriate that the resident had to raise the lack of any plan as a complaint before these concerns were addressed. The lack of any clear records or overall objectives will have added to the resident’s sense of frustration and lack of confidence in the landlord’s overall strategy for the time of her licence. Although the landlord has acknowledged this failing and put steps in place to improve its record keeping, no redress has been offered to the resident and it has not, therefore, taken sufficient steps to put things right. A finding of maladministration has therefore been determined here, with an order of compensation to reflect the detriment experienced by the resident during the period in question.

Staff Behaviour

The complaint regarding the Scheme manager concerns allegations of lies regarding information received from the police, and informing the resident’s social worker of an incident where the resident went outside to smoke, leaving her daughter asleep.
The landlord has provided details of the email sent by the Police which, it explained, was not shared as it contained confidential information regarding other individuals. This was a reasonable explanation that is supported by the evidence. The information passed to the resident by the Scheme Manager was appropriate and reflected the information provided.
Limited evidence has been provided regarding the information provided to social services. There is evidence that the Scheme Manager contacted the resident’s social worker following the second incident involving her partner, due to concerns for the resident and her child’s safety and welfare. The social worker explained that a new referral would be necessary, as the Child in Need plan had been closed. No evidence of the referral has been provided to this Service.
The landlord’s complaint responses provided an explanation to the resident as to why the referral was made and the landlord’s duty of care to its residents. The landlord’s Safeguarding policy sets out that concerns should be reported promptly, within one day of the concern arising, either with or without the resident’s consent. Given the Scheme Manager’s concerns for the welfare of the resident and her child it was in keeping with the landlord’s safeguarding policy that social services were informed of the concern. The Scheme Manager was acting in accordance with policy when raising concerns with the social worker and there is no evidence of any maladministration.

Noise reports

The resident has explained that she made a number of complaints regarding noise and the smoking of cannabis, but that no action was taken by the landlord. In response the landlord reviewed its records but found no formal record of any such report. Its staff advised that the resident had been asked to submit the required form but was unwilling to complete the form. No formal action had been taken, although the landlord’s complaint responses do set out the steps it had taken to try and deal with the problems. Since the complaint response, the resident has completed the required form, and been informed of the outcome of the landlord’s actions in response.
The landlord’s actions in requiring details of the incidents were reasonable. Once a form is received it then undertakes its investigation and reports back to the resident on the outcome. This was a reasonable request and there are no grounds for any further involvement from this Service.

Ban on partner visiting

The licence agreement sets out that residents and their visitors must not cause or commit any form of harassment, nuisance, annoyance or other anti-social behaviour to any other resident, member of their household, visitor, neighbour, or any other member of the general public in the locality of the Premises or to any of the Licensor’s or a superior landlord’s employees, contractors or agents (whether in or around the Premises or elsewhere). The definition of harassment set out in the agreement included violence, threats of violence to any person, abusive or insulting works or behaviour.
Both incidents involving the resident’s partner fell within this definition. Police were called on both occasions and whilst no charges were laid, the behaviour exhibited was sufficient to trigger the landlord’s policy on restricting visitors.
The information in the house handbook is clear that any breach of the visitor conditions would result in a guest ban and a formal warning. It details that the 1st breach would result in a one-week ban, the 2nd in a one-month ban, and the 3rd would result in an indefinite ban. These infractions related to breaches of rules relating to overnight stays. The policy also states that where there is risk to other residents’ staff or visitors, the landlord may decline, restrict, or remove the visitor permission.
Given the concerns for safety that arose from the incidents, it was appropriate for the landlord to use its discretion and ban the resident’s partner from its authorised visitors list. It gave clear explanations as to why this occurred and its reasoning. Whilst it is accepted that the ban will have caused difficulties for the resident and her child, the landlord’s actions were fair in the circumstances as it sought to protect the residents, staff, and visitors at the Scheme.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman makes the following findings
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint regarding the support provided as part of the licence agreement.
2. No maladministration regarding the complaint about the behaviour of the team manager.
3. No maladministration regarding the reports of antisocial behaviour.
4. No maladministration regarding the decision to ban the resident’s partner from visiting the Scheme.
In accordance with paragraph 42 K of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of personal data is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged that there were failings in its provision of support and was unable to locate records of support plans and notes of meetings. However, it failed to offer any redress to the resident to put things right.
The team manager acted appropriately when raising her concerns with social services and full explanations have been provided to the resident
There is no evidence of any formal antisocial behaviour reports being made by the resident prior to the complaint. The correct process has been explained and this was followed in relation to the next occurrence.
The landlord’s action in banning the resident’s partner from the visitors list was done in line with the house rules and with the aim of protecting the residents, staff, and visitors at the Scheme. The landlord therefore took legitimate action when dealing with the incidents.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation for its failure in maintaining records of support plans and objectives for the resident to work towards move-on accommodation.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.