Beyond Housing Limited (202209805)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209805

Beyond Housing Limited

28 July 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 is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s request for a single point of contact and communication adjustments.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about security, specifically CCTV and locks on the gates.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block. The resident has informed the landlord that he struggles with mental ill health and has a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. The landlord recognises the resident as vulnerable.
Under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) organisations have to make changes in their approach or provision to ensure that services are accessible to disabled people as well as everybody else. The landlord’s equality, diversity and inclusion policy states that its objective is to understand and meet the obligations of the Act. The policy states that it is required to have due regard of the need to:
1. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act.
2. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.
3. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.
The landlord has a policy guidance document regarding its use of CCTV equipment to ensure that it is meeting its responsibilities under the General Data Protection Rights Regulation (GDPR).
The landlord’s ASB policy uses the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy details examples of how it will investigate a report of ASB and actions it could choose to take. Actions could include reviewing previous cases, contact with other neighbour’s, contact with other agencies such as the police, and interviewing the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it may obtain and use evidence from a range of sources when dealing with ASB, for example, photographs and recordings on a mobile phone, diary sheets, social media, camera and noise monitoring equipment, police/police community support officers and staff. It will take action against perpetrators of ASB which is both reasonable and proportionate. The policy states that it will use both legal and non-legal remedies. Non-legal action may include:
1. Warnings (written)
2. Joint interviews (with other agencies, such as the council or the police)
3. Acceptable Behaviour Agreements
4. Notice of Seeking Possession.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that not all reports relating to behaviour that impact an individual can be deemed ASB. It says that it is important to show tolerance and be respectful of differing lifestyles and circumstances. Examples used include everyday house noise such as washing machines, vacuum cleaners, flushing the toilet, opening and closing doors, and going up and down stairs.
When an ASB case is closed the landlord’s policy says the resident will be contacted to complete a satisfaction survey and the information provided will help to improve its ASB service.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy says that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will provide a written response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that a resident may be eligible for compensation if it responds to a complaint outside of its response time frames. The compensation relates to response timescales only and will be paid as:
1. An initial payment of £10.
2. Further payments of £2 for every day outside of the standard (up to a maximum of £50).

Summary of events

In November 2021 the resident requested that the landlord did not use text messaging as a form of communication. The landlord acknowledged this request and added an alert to the resident’s records.
On 21 January 2022 the resident notified the landlord that he requested an email prior to any repair appointment. The landlord acknowledged this request and advised him it had added an alert to the resident’s account.
On 16 February 2022 the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord’s customer services team. He said:
1. The landlord’s telephone system was difficult to use and was not mental health friendly.
2. The automated voice and music adversely affected his sensory.
3. That the majority of staff who answer the phones are lacking mental health awareness skills and make situations worse.
4. That he had no way of confidently contacting the landlord.
5. That he had no support worker or social worker, so his life was actually very difficult.
6. That the landlord had failed to implement an effective remedy to create a suitable means of communication for him.
7. That he had some suggestions that might help prevent future disappointment and frustration if the landlord was willing to discuss them with him.
On the same day the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It said that:
1. It was sorry that the resident felt unable to confidently contact a member of its staff.
2. It advised that in a previous stage 1 response (that it attached to the email), it had suggested a point of contact for the resident. The staff member was an experienced member of staff who had advised that she had received no recent communication from the resident.
3. The landlord encouraged the resident to speak to the point of contact to discuss his ideas regarding future contact and mental health awareness.
4. The landlord said that the point of contact would “be more than happy to assist, listen and learn.”
5. It thanked the resident for his feedback. It advised that it had taken the feedback on board and would use it to review its telephone system.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord said:
1. It understood the resident’s complaint was made as he felt it discriminated against customers with mental health issues.
2. It was sorry the resident felt the way he did. It said it was committed to providing equality of access to its services and equality of service delivery. It said it aimed to ensure everyone received the same high standard of service.
3. It explained that it had a duty by law to make reasonable adjustments to meet access needs of disabled residents. It said that the resident had told it about his borderline personality disorder diagnosis and that it had made a number of reasonable adjustments to support his needs. It explained that:
  1. He had requested that the landlord did not send him text messages. It said it had tailored its communication so that he received emails, opposed to text messages, to advise him of repair appointments. The landlord provided evidence that it had added an alert concerning this to the resident’s account.
  2. It would contact him before a repair visit to let him know to expect the operative. The landlord provided evidence that it had added an alert concerning this to the resident’s account.
  3. It had granted third party authorisation for a named person to contact it on the resident’s behalf.
  4. It had recognised that the resident was feeling anxious about ASB and agreed to a direct match priority move.
  5. It had granted permission for the resident to keep a small, therapeutic pet dog to help maintain his wellbeing.
  6. It had offered to help make referrals to mental health support on the resident’s behalf.
  7. It had provided him with a single point of contact, as requested, to eliminate the stress caused when needing to contact the landlord.
4. The landlord’s response provided links to mental health support.
5. The landlord was sorry that the resident had frustrations with its telephone system. It suggested as an alternative he use its online chat option.
6. The landlord’s single point of contact had undergone mental health awareness training and the resident was reminded of the direct email address and telephone number that he could use to avoid the need for him to use the main telephone system.
7. It asked the resident to email it with any additional ideas or suggestions that he had so that it could help deliver its services to him.
8. It explained that it did not have a separate mental health policy as he had requested. However it attached a copy of its equality, diversity and inclusion policy.
9. It apologised for any anxiety or stress that he may have experienced during his interactions with it. It advised it would like to work with him to alleviate these issues.
On 28 February 2022 the resident escalated his communication adjustment stage 1 complaint as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said:
1. That he considers the landlord’s comments that it had made a reasonable adjustment to support his needs and had been sending email notifications for dates when repairs could be done to be untrue.
2. That he was still receiving text messages as this had not been deactivated.
3. That he had received an unannounced visit that day where his buzzer had been pressed. He did not answer it as it triggers his mental health.
4. That he would like the landlord to remove his authorisation to communicate with a named third party. He advised that he had no alternative person to help him.
5. That he would not phone the landlord as he found the “high pitched voices and music unbearable.”
6. That he acknowledged that he had been accepted for a direct match [to move] but considered that the landlord had been slow to address this. He also felt he had had to get involved with security issues at the property that included the CCTV and gate locks that had “still not been fitted.”
7. That the landlord’s point of contact had not responded to his text, voice or WhatsApp messages.
8. That the landlord’s staff required training to help people with mental health issues.
9. That the landlord needed a new phone system where resident’s feel comfortable contacting the landlord.
10. That his intercom system required a repair for “many months” and it triggers his mental health not knowing who he is letting in.
On 28 March 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It addressed each of the resident’s complaint points as follows:
1. It explained that at the resident’s request, it had added an alert to his account. This had been completed on 21 January 2022. This would ensure that he was notified by email of any repair appointments.
2. It explained that it had added an alert to his account on 22 November 2021. This was to advise staff not to send text messages to the resident.
3. It apologised if he had received any texts since this date. It asked that he let it know if it happened in the future and it would investigate the reason why.
4. It apologised that its electrical team leader had visited the property unannounced on 28 February 2022. It explained that the contractor was carrying out the visit to investigate the resident’s [separate] complaint about his intercom system. The contractor was in the area and called by to offer help without checking the resident’s records. It apologised for the upset caused.
5. It apologised that his buzzer had also been pressed by mistake the same day. The landlord explained it had been onsite with local external partners and the buzzer was pressed by mistake by the local police community support officer (PCSO). The landlord apologised for the upset caused.
6. It acknowledged that the resident had advised that he was no longer working with a third party and confirmed it had removed consent from his records.
7. It said that it understood that the resident preferred not to contact it by telephone, and it had suggested alternative methods to use in its stage 1 response. It advised that it was currently reviewing its telephone system and would take on board the resident’s feedback.
8. It acknowledged that a direct match move had been agreed due to ASB the resident had experienced. It had fitted locks to the gates at the property but the fire service insisted that these be removed. This was due to a perceived risk to residents in case of a fire. It advised that its health and safety manager would visit the block to explore alternative locking mechanisms.
9. It said it was sorry to hear that when the resident had tried to contact the nominated single point of contact, he had not managed to contact the officer. It advised that the officer had a busy role but was committed to ensuring the resident received returned communications. It also noted that since it had suggested the officer as the single point of contact it understood that there had been no contact attempts.
10. The landlord apologised that the resident felt that he had received a poor experience from it. However, it felt it had made reasonable adjustments to help the resident to communicate with it.
11. The landlord also mentioned some historic issues and ones relating to a separate complaint about the intercom system at the property. These issues are mentioned for completeness but do not form part of the complaint which is subject of this investigation.
On the same day the resident made a complaint about security at the property. This was specific to CCTV and gate locks.
On 11 April 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident regarding his concerns about CCTV and that locks had been removed from the gates. The landlord advised that it had been unsuccessful in its attempt to contact the resident by telephone. Its written response said:
1. It had requested that its health and safety officer investigate the issue regarding gate locks and provide advice on locking mechanisms that it could use that would comply with the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and fire brigade.
2. It had asked its facilities team to survey the installed cameras and advise if it was able to add additional cameras or alter the existing system to provide further coverage.
3. It advised that it would write to the resident again to keep him informed.
On 22 April 2022 the resident made a complaint regarding the landlord’s nominated single point of contact. He said that he had sent messages requesting help but never received a response.
On 27 April 2022 the resident sent a follow up to his complaint regarding the landlord’s nominated single point of contact. He was dissatisfied that the nominated single point of contact had not answered his telephone call or responded to a text message.
On 4 May 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response regarding the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of communication from its nominated single point of contact.
1. The landlord apologised for any upset and inconvenience caused.
2. It advised that the missed call its officer had received showed as an unknown number. There had been no voicemail message. Therefore it was not possible to return the call. It further explained that there had been no context in the text message other than “hello [officer].”
3. The landlord was satisfied that its officer was unable to decipher the call/message and it did not feel it was necessary for the officer to respond to an unknown source.
4. It advised that during its investigation it identified that the resident’s telephone number was different to the one on file. It asked the resident for the number he would prefer it to use.
On 23 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s customer services team. He asked for an update regarding locks for the gates. He considered locks necessary to prevent non residents using the rear of the property.
On 24 May 2022 the resident escalated his complaint about the landlord’s nominated single point of contact. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response for not answering his text message and said he had been discriminated against due to his mental health. He confirmed that he had changed his mobile telephone number and advised that it was due to the landlord’s text messages.
On 10 June 2022 the landlord recorded that the resident had approached a member of the landlord’s staff in the street. He reported noise from a neighbouring property that was keeping him awake in the early hours. The noise reported included banging and a washing machine. On the same day the officer contacted the resident by telephone to discuss his noise reports. It advised that it would contact the alleged perpetrators.
On 17 June 2022 the resident emailed the multiple landlord contacts. He advised that there had been an incident the evening of 15 June 2022 that was a “racially motivated attack where weapons where (sic) involved.” He also advised of a verbal incident on 17 June 2022. The resident raised his concerns regarding his safety and raised questions regarding CCTV coverage of the blind spots and his request for locks on the gates. His email was marked as a formal complaint and included the following questions:
1. Why had the landlord installed CCTV.
2. Were the cameras actually working.
3. Why had the landlord not installed sufficient CCTV to cover blind spots.
4. Why had locks not been fitted to the gates.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord issued a stage 2 response about the resident’s complaint regarding the nominated single point of contact and lack of contact/communication. The landlord advised that the complaint was not upheld. It had spoken to its officer and the text message received from the resident simply said “Hi [officers name].” The officer advised the identity of the caller was unknown and no reason for the contact had been provided.
On 29 June 2022 the landlord recorded that the resident had made no further ASB reports. It recorded that it would keep the case open to monitor.
On 1 July 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response regarding the resident’s ASB complaint and answered the resident’s specific questions: It said:
1. It was sorry to hear of the incident that the resident had reported within a complaint. It said it would have liked to have discussed the matter with him further but had not received a response to its email sent on 20 June 2022.
2. It advised that an ASB case had been opened regarding the incident that he had reported.
3. It advised that cameras were installed to aid the management of properties and help to deter vandalism, and anti-social behaviour.
4. It advised that the cameras installed were operational and recorded images.
5. The landlord advised that it had already installed the capacity number of cameras permitted. It explained that GDPR laws prohibit cameras covering large areas of public land and must be specific, and not pointing to anyone’s property, windows, or any public area.
6. It advised that locks were initially installed on the gates [at the resident’s request] but following a separate complaint and assessment by its health and safety advisor, the locks had to be removed. It explained that a survey was conducted to establish what alternative measures could be made. The report was being assessed to see if the cost and maintenance would be prohibitive.
7. It advised the resident that any criminal activity recorded by CCTV could be shared with the police on request. It also urged the resident to immediately report any incident of violence or threat to the police by calling 999. It advised that it had checked with partner agencies, including the police and no reports of the incidents had been received.
8. It offered an apology for the upset and inconvenience caused by the actions of residents and visitors to the resident’s neighbourhood. It asked the resident to make note of any further incidents and enclosed diary sheets for him to use. The landlord agreed to contact the resident on return from leave and provided two alternative contacts should he require assistance during that time.
On 7 and 12 July 2022 the landlord contacted the resident. As it had received no new ASB reports from him, it asked the resident if he was still affected by noise. The landlord also noted that the resident had not contacted either of the two alternative contacts provided on 1 July 2022. The landlord offered to arrange for any diary sheets to be collected so that it could investigate further if necessary.
On the same day there were multiple messages between the resident and landlord:
1. The resident said he was still experiencing ASB. He considered his situation was being dismissed. In his response to his single point of contact he referred to the member of staff as “ignorant” and “unprofessional.” He ended his email by saying it would be less stressful if he did not deal with her again.
2. The landlord responded. It said it was sorry that the resident felt that way. It advised that the ASB that he reported was not being dismissed and it was contacting him to progress it in line with its policy. It advised that it was happy to allocate an alternative contact to handle the ASB concerns. It suggested this contact could call weekly and collect any diary sheets. It asked for the resident to advise the best way for contact to be maintained so that it could progress things for him. There was no evidence that the resident responded to this question.
3. Within the resident’s next response he referred to the difficulties with his mental health. He explained he was finding it difficult speaking via emails and was uncomfortable that people were able to access the back of the property. He described behaviour by non residents that included drinking and smashing bottles.
4. The resident said the landlord had dismissed his complaints regarding noise from his neighbours.
5. The resident suggested that the responding single point of contact had not responded to him when he had “reached out.”
6. The landlord expressed concern for the resident and provided the contact information for several support charities.
On 13 July 2022 the landlord completed a health and safety fire risk assessment. It attended the block and recorded that solutions were being reviewed to lock the gates to the rear of the property. This was to prevent unauthorised access.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord’s single point of contact emailed the resident. The landlord advised it wished to review his ASB concerns. It explained that he had not provided diary sheets or sent any further communication. It asked for any evidence to be returned to it and offered to collect it from him.
On the same day the resident said he had offered the landlord the diaries many times. He said “nobody has been interested…” He ended his email by stating “we are in complaint mode.”
On 28 July 2022 the landlord’s single point of contact responded to the resident and said that the landlord was sorry that the resident felt this way. She advised that the landlord was unable to progress the matter through partner agencies, Environmental Health (EH) or the courts without his evidence. She advised that the landlord was happy to work with the resident to help resolve the matter. She advised that the landlord would keep the case open for a further two weeks at which point it would close the case if unable to obtain further details from him. The landlord advised it would like to offer independent mediation between the resident and the alleged perpetrating neighbour. It asked the resident to advise if this was something he would consider. There was no evidence that the resident responded to this question.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord closed the ASB case about racial slur/threatening behaviour. It noted that there had been no further reports of incidents from the resident and the alleged perpetrator was currently in prison.
On 8 August 2022 the resident sent two emails to this Service to make complaints about the landlord. He said:
1. That he had made a reasonable adjustment request to his landlord “several times.”
  1. He had sought a single point of contact to support him with his repairs and general enquiries.
  2. That he considered the landlord’s assigned contact was not dealing with his requests.
2. He advised he could not ring the landlord as its automated telephone system and music triggered his mental health difficulties.
3. That he felt discriminated against due to his mental health and that the landlord was not treating him fairly.
4. That he considered a specific officer to be “very unprofessional.” He advised this Service that the officer had not taken notes during appointments, despite the landlord previously agreeing that notes would be taken.
On the same day there was evidence that the resident emailed the landlord’s customer services team a request to escalate his CCTV and gate complaint to stage 2. He said:
1. That he was complaining as the landlord had not put security locks on the gates to the property.
2. That the landlord had said in a stage 1 response in August 2021 that it would fit key pad locks on the gates to the property. This was almost a year ago.
3. That he continued to be put at risk of being a “victim of trespass, crime and ASB.”
4. That he hardly slept as he was scared of people coming around the back of the property and throwing stones at his windows or stealing.
5. That he would feel better if there were locks on the gates.
On 26 August 2022 the resident emailed this Service with a further complaint about his landlord. He said that his landlord was not providing adequate security which was causing him alarm and distress. He explained that the landlord was taking a long time to install the CCTV and had not put locks on gates which it said it would do “over a year ago.”
On 31 August 2022 the resident responded to an email from this Service. He advised that this was his second complaint about the same issues. The landlord had failed to sort out the locks on the gate and CCTV cameras and he remained dissatisfied. On the same day this Service wrote to the landlord as the resident advised that he had received no response.
On the same day the landlord received contact from this Service it escalated the resident’s CCTV and gate complaint of 11 April 2022.
On 1 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It advised that it had received communication from this Service regarding his CCTV complaint. It explained that it had provided him with its stage 1 response on 11 April 2022. Therefore it would escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. It advised that it would respond in writing within 20 working days.
On 21 September 2022 the resident informed this Service that the landlord had not responded to his complaint.
On 26 September 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a complaint response.
On 7 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response regarding the CCTV and gate locks at the property:
1. It advised that the resident had appealed its stage 1 response about the security at the property. In particular his request for padlocks on the gates and the installation of CCTV.
2. It offered an apology for any upset and inconvenience caused.
3. It explained that due to fire regulations it had been unable to fit padlocks to the gates accessing the rear of the block. However an order had been raised to fit a keypad lock to the gate.
4. It explained that it had visited the block and considered that covering the gate from the outside would protect access to the locking mechanism. It advised that this could be achieved by using either mesh or Plexiglas. It hoped that this would prevent unauthorised people from entering the rear of the property. It advised that all gates had been measured and its supplier was sourcing the required materials. It hoped to complete the work within three weeks.
5. It confirmed that there was CCTV coverage to all external communal doors and internal communal areas. It further explained that it was unable to point cameras directly at properties doors or windows, or at the street or public areas. It explained that this was due to breaching privacy laws. It said it was only permitted to use CCTV to cover the access points of its properties and internal communal areas.
6. It advised that it had arranged for a site visit on 20 October 2022 to see if anything further could be done with the CCTV.
7. In its response it confirmed a single point of contact as requested by the resident.
On 10 October 2022 this Service accepted the resident’s complaints for investigation.
On 25 October 2022 the landlord provided the resident with a written update following its site visit to inspect the security measures at the property. It advised:
1. CCTV was covering every front door, every rear door and every stair well.
2. The doors and door entry systems had been upgraded to provided additional security.
3. It considered that all was in line with its CCTV policy and that no further improvements were necessary.
4. It confirmed that mesh would be installed on external gates to improve security for all residents. This would be completed as soon as it received the materials required.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In June 2022 this Service completed an investigation about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. The landlord had issued a stage 1 response on 19 June 2021 and a stage 2 on 8 September 2021. This investigation was completed and a determination of no maladministration issued. The resident has commented on these events within more recent communication with the landlord. This will not form part of this investigation as the Ombudsman has already made a decision on these matters.
It is noted that the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord on 3 October 2022. This was about his desire to move. The communication was shared with this Service. It is evident that the complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s procedures and will not therefore form part of this investigation.
The resident reports that he has raised the same complaints on more than one occasion as he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. This is not disputed by the landlord who in November 2022 informed this Service that it had received 18 stage 1 complaints from the resident in 16 months, and 7 stage 2 complaints within 14 months. The landlord states that there are separate complaints that it has responded to and relate to this investigation. These are:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. The resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment and a designated single point of contact.
3. The installation of CCTV and gate locks at the property due to non residents accessing the rear of the block.

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The resident approached the landlord in the street on 10 June 2022 to report noise from a neighbouring property. It was reasonable that the landlord acted on the information and called the resident later that day. The landlord took details of the alleged incident and there is evidence that it followed its ASB policy. There is no further evidence that the resident reported further noise occurrences.
Having received no additional reports of noise and no diary sheets as of 12 July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident for updates. It was reasonable that the landlord offered on more than one occasion to collect diary sheets when the resident advised that he was still affected by noise. There is no evidence that the resident accepted the landlord’s offer to collect his diary sheets and there was no further evidence that incidents of noise were reported.
The landlord closed the resident’s noise complaint and wrote to him on 16 August 2022 with a satisfaction survey. This was appropriate as it was in line with its ASB procedures. It noted that no noise monitors had been requested or installed and there had been no diary sheets provided or made available for collection.
Following the resident’s reports of a racial/threatening incident on 15 June 2022 it was appropriate that the landlord opened an ASB case. In its complaint response dated 1 July 2022 the landlord advised that it had made attempts to contact the resident to discuss this incident but had been unsuccessful. The case was closed on 29 July 2022 as the alleged perpetrator was in prison.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was clear, thorough and sympathetic. The landlord displayed concern for the resident and followed its procedures. It also took steps to ensure that it provided links and contact details for support channels that the resident could self refer to. This showed that the landlord was actively listening to the concerns being raised by the resident and made attempts to provide alternative support when he was not fully engaging with it.
The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its ASB policy and there was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in its response to resident’s reports of ASB.

Response to the resident’s request for a single point of contact and communication adjustments

It is evident that the resident requested a reasonable adjustment in November 2021 and a further adjustment on 21 January 2022. This request included communication in writing prior to appointments and a single point of contact as the resident had expressed difficulties using the landlord’s telephone system. The resident says he felt discriminated against as the landlord failed to adhere to his requests.
There is evidence that the landlord added a reasonable adjustment alert in November 2021 to the resident’s records to stop text messages being sent to him. On 21 January 2021 there is evidence that an additional alert was added on the same day as his call. An alert was logged at 1.17pm on 21 January 2022. The alert recorded the resident’s requests and included his preferred email address.
Following the resident’s request for a single point of contact a member of the landlord’s staff was assigned to the resident. On or around August 2021 the landlord had previously introduced the member of its staff to the resident. This member of staff had completed mental health awareness training. Although the landlord had made this arrangement, it was evident that the resident continued to email other members of staff. This was evidenced on 16 February 2022 when the landlord’s customer services team encouraged the resident to speak to the nominated point of contact. Further examples where the resident chose to communicate with other staff members took place on 23 May 2022, 17 June 2022 and 8 August 2022. This list is not exhaustive.
During a period of leave in July 2022 the single point of contact provided the resident with two alternative contacts. This action was proactive and forward thinking about the resident’s concerns of ASB. It ensured that he had a means of communicating without the need to use its telephone system that he had described having difficulties with. There was no record of the resident contacting either alternative member of staff to report any new incidents.
It was reasonable that the landlord offered the resident an alternative single point of contact when the relationship appeared to breakdown. Although the landlord did not uphold a separate complaint regarding the single point of contact, it sought to ensure that the resident had someone with whom he could communicate and to maintain the reasonable adjustment.
There is evidence that the landlord offered to collect diary sheets from the resident on more than one occasion. This showed that the landlord was adjusting its services to offer help to the resident. It took the resident’s comments seriously and was prepared to continue to monitor the open case. There was no evidence that the resident provided diary sheets or accepted the landlord’s offer to collect them. Therefore it was reasonable that the landlord set a date and informed the resident that it would be closing the case if no new information was provided.
As well as the alert for written communication, there is evidence to show that the resident’s records included guidance to staff not to send text messages. It was reasonable that the landlord offered to investigate any breaches of this adjustment should the resident receive text messages. There was no evidence that a breach occurred.
The landlord acknowledged in February 2022 that its electrical contractor had attempted to resolve a reported issue with the resident’s intercom while in the area. This contractor called by unannounced. Although it was displaying a desire to be proactive to offer help to the resident it failed to check the system. An apology was given by the landlord for this unannounced visit. This was reasonable and there was no evidence of any further incidents.
The landlord has displayed that it has acted on the resident’s request for alternative means of communication and invited him to tell it if there was more that it could do to improve his experience. It has provided the direct contact details of nominated members of staff and explained to the resident that it has a live chat function that would be faster for the resident to use. This would also bypass the telephone system. The landlord has demonstrated its desire to foster a relationship with the resident and adapted its approach to ensure the resident’s requests and needs were accommodated. This is in line with its equality, diversity and inclusion policy and the Act.
For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a single point of contact and communication adjustments.

Response to the resident’s concerns about security, specifically CCTV and locks on the gates

It is evident that the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaints and its explanations regarding the CCTV and gate locks. This investigation has sought to determine whether the landlord has failed to follow its policies and procedures or failed to follow the law when addressing the matters raised by the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 March 2022. It explained that locks it had fitted to the gates had been removed due to risk to residents in case of fire. The resident acknowledged in an email to the landlord on 28 March 2022 that the fire brigade had insisted on removal of the locks. To ensure that the landlord complied with its obligations to HSE it was reasonable that the landlord removed the locks and inform the resident that its health and safety manager would visit the block to explore alternative options.
In April 2022 and July 2022 the landlord provided the resident with further updates regarding security. It completed a fire risk assessment on 13 July 2022 and said that it was continuing to seek a viable option to the gate locks. It is reasonable that the landlord was exploring options and considering the cost benefits and maintenance requirements of these options.
In October 2022 the landlord identified a suitable alternative and placed an order for the necessary materials. It informed the resident that the works would be completed as soon as the materials were available. The landlord installed mesh to the front of the gates and considered that this would improve security to the rear of the building. Residents could also lock the rear of the property from unwanted access. Although the landlord had considered push pads, the electronics and logistics involved meant the mesh option offered a faster solution for the residents.
Although the resident may not be entirely satisfied with the option that that the landlord has opted for, it is not for this Service to tell the landlord what locking mechanism to use. The landlord has displayed that it has listened to the resident’s security concerns and taken action to provide a reasonable measure to prevent unauthorised access which it is satisfied will achieve the desired results and be cost effective to maintain.
There is evidence that the landlord responded thoroughly to each of the resident’s queries regarding security and reassured the resident that the installed CCTV was operational and actively recording. It informed the resident that footage could be requested by the police if required and checked the positioning of the cameras during site visits.
The landlord has acted in accordance with its data protection obligations and explained to the resident that it had already installed the capacity number of cameras permitted. It has taken steps to reassure the resident that the cameras are covering all doors and stairwells and explained that GDPR laws prohibit cameras covering large areas of public land and must be specific, and not pointing to anyone’s property, windows, or any public area.
For the reasons explained in the preceding paragraphs there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about security, specifically CCTV and locks on the gates.

Complaint handling

It is evident that the landlord received multiple complaint communications from the resident regarding various issues over an extended period of time. There is evidence that the landlord’s responses have generally been thorough and timely, answering each point raised by the resident. The landlord’s responses displayed concern for the resident’s welfare and offered an apology when he has expressed dissatisfaction. It has taken time to reassure and explain things within its communications. This was reasonable.
The landlord has generally responded to the resident’s complaints within the time frames set out in its complaint’s policy. However, the landlord has acknowledged to this Service that an administration error occurred when dealing with multiple communications from the resident in August 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s security complaint on 11 April 2022. However it failed to escalate it when asked by the resident on 8 August 2022.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 31 August 2022 to request that it escalate the complaint. The landlord acknowledged this request and informed the resident that it was escalating the complaint. It issued a stage 2 response to the resident on 7 October 2022. Between the resident’s escalation request on 8 August 2022 and 7 October 2022 there was 43 working days. This was 23 working days beyond the landlord’s response time frames as set out in its complaints policy.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered (an acknowledgement of failings) by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Although the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings there is no evidence that it offered an apology to the resident for the delayed stage 2 response. It failed to offer redress in line with its compensation policy for its late complaint response and therefore did not put matters right. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes by demonstrating how it could avoid similar failings in the future. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Its response to the resident’s request for a single point of contact and communication adjustments.
3. Its response to the resident’s concerns about security, specifically CCTV and locks on the gates.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy and procedures. Although no further ASB reports were made, it offered to collect diary sheets if the resident remained affected. The resident did not provide any additional evidence for the landlord to act upon.
The landlord acknowledged and facilitated the resident’s requests for a reasonable adjustment. It raised alerts on the resident’s records to stop text messages being sent and highlighted the resident’s request to have appointments in writing. It provided him with a single point of contact and alternative contact methods to avoid using the landlord’s telephone system.
The landlord has responded to the resident’s security concerns and taken action to seek alternative options to gate locks deemed unsafe by the fire brigade. It fitted mesh to prevent unauthorised people accessing the rear of the property which enables resident’s to lock the gate. The landlord has reassured the resident that each door and stairwell is monitored by active CCTV. It explained its obligations under GDPR and advised the resident that it had the capacity number of cameras already installed.
The landlord failed to correctly escalate the residents request on 8 August 2022. Its stage 2 response was issued on 7 October 2022. This was 43 working days after the escalation request, 23 working days beyond its 20 working day complaint handling response time frame.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation of £50 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failure.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with this order.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should consider completing a block survey to ask the residents for feedback following the installation of mesh on the rear gates. It can then assess the effectiveness of this measure and whether it has stopped the unauthorised access to the property that was causing the resident concern.
The landlord should consider arranging a meeting with the resident to review his requested reasonable adjustments. This may give opportunity to ensure all arrangements are adequate for his current needs and provide an opportunity to listen to any alternative suggestions the resident may have.
The landlord should consider what, if any, other agencies the resident might want to work with or get support from now that he has declared having no immediate support or advocate to assist him.