Broadacres Housing Association Limited (202310178)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310178

Broadacres Housing Association Limited

16 August 2024

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. Handling of its decision to place the resident on a contact restriction and to only visit the resident in pairs.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about conduct of its staff.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments by the landlord.
4. Response to the resident’s request for it to maintain the garden hedge.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 11 April 2016 and the property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident suffers with severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
On 21 June 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary he said that he was dissatisfied with the conduct of the landlord’s staff. He wanted to know why a flag had been placed on his account to “visit in pairs.” He was also dissatisfied with appointments arranged by the landlord being cancelled.
On 3 July 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. For the purpose of this report this will be referred to as the first stage 1 response. It agreed that its staff member had not handled a telephone call appropriately. It advised that the staff member wished to apologise to the resident personally. It also said that it should have arranged to call the resident back rather than leaving him on hold. It said that it had reviewed the statement made about restricting contact to email. It said it would not action this but did think it was something that could be considered on some occasions to help the resident have a better experience. In respect of the resident’s request to not have any contact from its surveyor. It said it had now allocated the resident a new property surveyor.
The landlord explained that a visit in pairs had been placed on the resident’s account due to previous incidents involving aggressive behaviour. It apologised that he had not been informed and provided him details of how he could appeal the decision should he wish to. It said that an appointment was cancelled in June due to rising temperatures and operatives not being able to work in loft spaces. It apologised for the lack of notice.
On 2 August 2023, the resident raised a second complaint. He said that he was still unhappy with the conduct of staff members. Appointments had again been missed for repairs and maintenance of his garden hedge.
The landlord responded on 16 August 2023 at stage 1. For the purpose of this report this will be referred to as the second stage 1 response. The landlord said that it had already investigated complaints about its housing officer. This investigation had resulted in the resident being provided a point of contact instead of his housing officer. On this basis it understood that there had been no further contact between the resident and the housing officer since its previous investigation.
In respect of staff sharing information and the complaint about its customer services manager these points had also already been investigated. It explained that he had been turned down for a property he had bid for because he was not eligible. It said that due to illness of its operatives it had missed 2 appointments. It explained the hedge formed part of the boundary to his home and was his responsibility. In the past a local farmer had maintained the hedge, but this was done as a good will gesture.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 because he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to visit him in pairs. He wanted to know when the incident occurred. Who attended and the nature of the behaviour.
On 4 October 2023, the landlord responded at stage 2. It said that it was satisfied that an incident had occurred that warranted its decision. The resident had been verbally aggressive to a member of staff. To protect its staff, it was not willing to disclose any further information about the incident. Its records show that the resident had also been abusive during telephone calls. It did however understand that his behaviour could be as a result of his PTSD.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service.

Assessment and findings

Decision to place the resident on a contact restriction and to only visit the resident in pairs.

The landlord has an unacceptable behaviour policy which was last updated in June 2024. It is unknown which policy was in place at the time of the complaint as the landlord has failed to provide this. The landlord’s policy states where staff are subject to unreasonable behaviour such as verbal abuse during a visit, they will advise the resident that their behaviour is unacceptable and that continued behaviour of this nature will lead to the visit being aborted.
It may then take action to restrict a resident’s contact. Any such restrictions will be evidence based, appropriate and proportionate and the resident in most circumstances will be advised in writing. It will explain why it considers the behaviour unacceptable and what action it will be taking and the planned duration.
It will inform the resident that it will periodically review whether the restrictions imposed are still necessary and should remain. Residents can appeal a decision to restrict contact by asking for a review. A director of a service not involved in the original decision will hear the review.
The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the incident which led to the contact restriction occurred or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the contact restriction was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This Service will also consider whether its response was fair in all the circumstances.
The evidence provided does not show when the contact restriction was put in place. In May 2023, the landlord replied to the resident in respect of his concerns about the contact restriction. It said an operative had reported that during a visit the resident had exhibited aggressive and intimidating behaviour.
On this basis it considered that an operative visiting the resident alone could feel vulnerable or unsafe. When it added the visit in pairs a decision was taken not to inform the resident. This was because he had previously made the landlord aware that he suffered from PTSD and could sometimes get annoyed. It did not want to upset the resident by informing him of the marker. In hindsight it said it should have explained this to the resident at the time.
The landlord’s policy states that in most cases it will inform the resident in writing. It does not however explain the circumstance when it will not. The landlord’s first stage 1 complaint response said that due to previous incidents involving aggressive behaviour the restriction had been implemented.
It apologised that it had not informed the resident and advised him how he could appeal. This response was vague. It also did not align with its policy. It failed to include why it considered the behaviour was unacceptable and how long the restriction would be present and when it would review it. This was not in accordance with its policy and a failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable and the fact that he had not been informed was causing him distress. Furthermore, it was a missed opportunity to try to put matters right at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s stage 2 response went slightly further to explain that the resident had been verbally aggressive to its member of staff. Its explanation that it did not wish to disclose the specifics so that it could protect its staff member was reasonable. However, it failed to provide details of how long the restriction would be in place and whether it would periodically review its decision.
The landlord failed to follow its policy when it implemented the contact restriction. It then failed to explain why it had chosen to depart from its policy within its complaint response. That it had not was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was vulnerable and had to spend time and effort pursuing the complaint. The landlord missed the opportunity within its complaint response to put matters right and provide the appropriate information. This then caused the resident further time and effort having to pursue the matter with this Service. This Service considers that the landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.

Response to the resident’s concerns about its staff conduct.

The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
The resident said that he considered members of the landlord’s staff had been discriminatory. In accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to the corresponding complaint handling.
In the landlord’s first stage 1 response as part of the investigation it said that it had listened to telephone calls with the member of staff that the resident had complained about. It also said that it had interviewed the member of staff. This showed that it had listened to the resident and taken his concerns seriously.
It apologised for the tone of the call and said that it felt that the call had not been handled well. It went further and offered a formal apology from its member of staff. This evidenced that it was trying to rebuild the landlord tenant relationship.
As part of its learning, it acknowledged that it should have called the resident back rather than keeping him on hold. It set out proposals of how contact could be facilitated moving forwards which was appropriate. The landlord also agreed to allocate an alternative surveyor in response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s response showed transparency and a resolution focused approach.
The landlord stated that the resident had expressed concerns about sharing information. The evidence provided to this Service does not show what the concerns were. The landlord said within its second stage 1 response that it had already previously investigated this issue within the first stage 1 response. This Service cannot see that it had so is unable to assess this point.
In relation to the resident’s concerns about his housing officer the landlord said it had investigated this previously. Since then, it had arranged for an alternative single point of contact for the resident. It said that this had ensured that there had been no further contact since. Although it is unknown when this was investigated the landlord had satisfied itself that the matter was now resolved which was appropriate.
In summary, this service is satisfied that the landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, it had acknowledged and investigated them, and clearly explained its position and acknowledged where there was evidence to support the resident’s claims. This service is, therefore, satisfied that the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s apology in these circumstances amounts to reasonable redress.

Response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments by the landlord.

The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation can be paid for a general service failure. In the landlord’s first stage 1 response it acknowledged that it had to cancel an appointment because of health and safety concerns. This being the rise in temperatures meant that it was to hot for its operatives to work in loft spaces. This explanation explained why it was unable to give more notice and was reasonable in the circumstances.
Within its second stage 1 response the landlord said that it had missed 2 appointments relating to the loft insulation due to illness. It failed to show that it had investigated the issue as it did not advise whether it had given notice. Or how it had communicated with the resident. It confirmed when a follow up appointment had been made and apologised.
In accordance with its compensation policy however it failed to consider whether compensation was appropriate given that it acknowledged had it had failed to attend appointments. The landlord’s failure to consider how it could put matters right amounts to a service failure.

Response to the resident’s request for it to maintain the garden hedge.

The tenancy agreement states that the resident must ensure that the garden let with the property does not become overgrown.
The landlord explained within its second stage 1 complaint response that the hedge formed part of the boundary to the resident’s home. It advised that it was not therefore part of its ground’s maintenance. This Service acknowledges the resident’s concerns about the type of hedge being larger than usual. However, the landlord’s response is in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It advised that a farmer had maintained it in the past as a good will gesture.
The landlord went further and visited the resident to assess the hedge. It said that it had passed on the resident’s request for it to be cut back in the autumn to a more manageable level. It said that it would then be the resident’s responsibility to maintain. The response was reasonable. It showed that it had listened to the resident, considered the issue and explained its position. This service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to maintain the garden hedge.

Complaint Handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
It is acknowledged that the landlord has assessed the resident’s complaints under two separate stage 1 complaints. Although this was reasonable because some of the issues the resident had raised were different to the first stage 1. However, to avoid confusion the landlord could have separated the issues to ensure that matters were assessed at both stages. By not doing this it departed from its complaint policy which was confusing.
The landlord’s complaint responses did show that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and taken them seriously. In relation to the contact restriction the landlord failed to assess its handling of the matter against its policy. Had it done so it could have confirmed the duration of the restriction and time periods for review. That it did not was a missed opportunity for it to fully investigate its handling of the matter and put matters right.
In general, the landlord set out its position clearly in respect of the other issues raised. It did not however consider where it had identified failings how it could put matters right. In particular whether it should consider compensation in accordance with its compensation policy. That it did not was a failing.
The landlord also referred to the resident’s concerns about sharing information. It said that this had already been considered in the first stage 1 response. The first stage 1 response does not show that it had. This was confusing and a failing in its handling of the complaint. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns, without receiving a response.
In summary the landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The landlord clearly explained its position in relation to most of the issues raised. In respect of the contact restriction however it failed to investigate its handling of the matter against its policy.
It also failed to provide a response in relation to the resident’s concerns about sharing information. It acknowledged some of the issues where it had failed and apologised. It failed however to consider whether compensation was appropriate to put matters right. This caused the resident further time and effort having to pursue his complaint further.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its decision to place the resident on a contact restriction and to only visit the resident in pairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to maintain the garden hedge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £425 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of its decision to place the resident on a contact restriction and to only visit the resident in pairs.
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments by the landlord.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to review the contact restriction, in accordance with its process. The outcome of the review should be sent to the resident in writing. If the outcome of the review is that the contact restriction remains the response should include details of the duration and/or provide details of when it will periodically review. A copy of its response to the review should be shared with this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation.

It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the opportunity for its member of staff to apologise to the resident if he has not done so already.