Curo Places Limited (202211408)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211408

Curo Places Limited

28 March 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:
1. The landlord sharing information with the resident’s advocate.
2. The appropriateness of the landlord’s offer of a stay in respite accommodation.
3. The landlord’s delivery of court papers to the resident’s address.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of breaches of her neighbours’ acceptable behaviour contracts.
5. Discrimination by the landlord.
6. The associated complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website). 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.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord sharing information with her advocate is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as it falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO). The resident has contacted the ICO for support around this aspect of her complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about discrimination by the landlord is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as this Service is unable to make a legal finding of discrimination. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be interrogated, and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against, she may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy of the property, where she has lived since 2012. The resident has complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD). She also experienced life changing injuries following an accident in 2019, which impact her daily living.
There is a long-standing anti-social behaviour (ASB) case between the resident and her neighbours. She has made many reports of ASB from her neighbours, and they have made counter-allegations. During a multi-agency meeting on 22 September 2022 the landlord and its partner agencies decided to extend the acceptable behaviour contracts (a voluntary written agreement to cease specified anti-social behaviours. They are part of an enforcement process that could result in legal action being taken.) of 2 of the resident’s neighbours.
The agencies felt there was insufficient evidence to consider a community protection warning (a formal warning sent before a community protection notice is served. A community protection notice is a legal order that says someone must, or must not, do specified behaviour that is having an unreasonable and persistent impact on others).
On 23 September 2022, the landlord updated the resident on the outcome of the meeting, and asked if she would like a respite stay in its ‘wellbeing house’. The wellbeing house is a free retreat available to the landlord’s residents for stays of up to a week. The resident asked if she would be able to take her cat, and the landlord agreed to find out for her.
On 28 September 2022, the landlord confirmed that the wellbeing house would consider allowing the resident to take her cat. The landlord reiterated its offer to refer her for a stay in the wellbeing house. It also asked if she would give her permission for it to speak to her GP. The resident responded, refusing consent for this.
On 1 October 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She believed the landlord’s offer of a stay in the wellbeing house was a pretence that it cared about her wellbeing.
2. She felt the offer was not appropriate due to her diagnosis of CPTSD, as staff would not be adequately trained and residents staying in the property would ‘trigger’ each other’s trauma.
3. She felt that it would be traumatic to return home after the respite stay, as she continued to experience ASB and feel unsafe there.
4. She felt the landlord was discriminating against her. For example, it had told her not to play music, which was a coping mechanism.
5. She believed that the landlord was ignoring breaches of her neighbour’s acceptable behaviour contract.
On 5 October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident’s advocate and informed her that it intended to serve court papers on the resident, as it was seeking to take out an injunction against her (an injunction is a legal order that compels someone to do, or not do, specific actions).
The resident felt this was a breach of data protection regulations and made a complaint about this on 7 October 2022.
On 26 October 2022, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She said she had asked that the landlord did not attend the property unannounced, but a member of staff, who she had complained about, had come to the property with a male colleague to deliver court papers. She found this very distressing.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 26 October 2022. In relation to the issues we are including in this investigation, it said:
1. The wellbeing house was a social, not clinical setting. The colleagues who supported residents at the house were well trained, but the resident was under no obligation to accept the landlord’s offer of a respite stay.
2. It was not ignoring evidence of breaches of her neighbours’ acceptable behaviour contracts. There was a further meeting about the ASB case that week.
3. The member of staff who attended her home to serve court papers was the only member of staff available. She attended the property with a colleague, which was standard procedure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 and 31 October 2022.
1. She asked why an incident in 2021 was not considered a breach of the neighbour’s acceptable behaviour contract and said the landlord had refused to give her information about the acceptable behaviour contract.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 23 November 2022. It did not uphold her complaint and reiterated the findings of its stage 1 complaint response.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought support from the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has a longstanding ASB case, which spans several years. However, the landlord’s wider handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was not considered as part of the complaints process in this case. Therefore, this investigation will consider the specific issues raised as part of the complaints process, rather than the landlord’s wider handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. These are:
1. Whether the landlord ignored 2 reports from the resident of her neighbours breaching their acceptable behaviour contracts.
2. Whether the landlord’s handling of delivering court papers to the resident’s address was appropriate.

The landlord’s response to reported breaches of the neighbours’ acceptable behaviour contracts

The resident said the landlord had ignored reports she made of her neighbours breaching their acceptable behaviour contracts. She said she had provided evidence of breaches in early August and September 2022.
The landlord did respond to both breaches reported by the resident in an email sent on 26 September 2022. The first report was of a box which the resident said was deliberately thrown into her walkway with a ‘directive note’. She had provided a photograph of the box. The landlord said that the photograph did not show that the action of throwing the box was directed at the resident. As a result, it did not consider the photograph to be evidence of a breach of the neighbour’s acceptable behaviour contract.
Landlords should ensure that any evidence used in an enforcement process is robust and could be used in a court if needed. Although the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account of what happened, the landlord’s assessment of the evidence and the reasons for its decision were explained to the resident clearly. This was reasonable.
The resident provided a video of the second incident, which she said showed two neighbours interacting with her in an abusive way. She also said there was a witness to the incident. The landlord said it had reviewed the footage, and in its view, the video showed the resident’s neighbour responding to verbal abuse from the resident. As a result, it did not consider the incident a breach of the neighbour’s acceptable behaviour contract. Again, the landlord’s assessment and reasoning were explained clearly to the resident.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s assessment of the evidence. She said the landlord was aware, and had previous evidence, that she never initiated contact with her neighbours. She said that the video only captured part of the incident, and prior to this, one of the neighbours had interacted aggressively with her visitor.
While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the evidence on its own merit. Evidence that relies on assumption is often inadequate for legal action. However, the landlord could have explained clearly and empathetically why it could not rely on the resident’s previous behaviour or her account of what had happened.
The incident was discussed at a multi-agency meeting between the landlord and the police on 21 September 2022. The agencies decided there was insufficient evidence for a community protection warning to be issued and decided to extend the acceptable behaviour contracts signed by the resident’s neighbours instead.
It is not clear if the resident gave the landlord contact details of the independent witness to the incident when she reported it. If she had done this, the landlord could have interviewed the witness. Information they provided may have given the landlord enough evidence to demonstrate a breach of the acceptable behaviour contract.
Even if the resident did not provide them, the landlord could have asked her for the witnesses details. This would have been a proactive step taken by the landlord to investigate the report fully. However, we are unable to say with any certainty that the overall outcome for the resident would have been different if it had done this.
In this case, as both reported breaches were discussed in a multi-agency setting and the landlord explained to the resident why it did not feel the reports met the threshold for evidence of her neighbours breaching their acceptable behaviour contracts there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports.

The landlord’s handling of delivering court papers to the resident’s address.

The resident says she had previously asked the landlord not to attend the property unannounced, so she was unhappy that the landlord did so. Two members of staff attended her home, which she found intimidating. She was also distressed that one of the members of staff who delivered the papers was someone she had made a recent complaint about.
In its complaint response, the landlord said no other staff were available on the day to deliver the papers and its usual practice was to deliver papers in pairs. Although it is common practice for landlords to serve court papers in person, it is also possible to serve court papers using other methods, including first-class post or using a process server. Given the circumstances of the case, including the complaint against its member of staff, the landlord could have considered an alternative method of service for the court papers.
Although it may have been less distressing for the resident if the landlord had chosen a different way to serve the court papers, it acted in line with usual procedure. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the serving court papers on the resident.

Offer of a respite stay in the wellbeing house

The landlord has a ‘wellbeing house’. The wellbeing house provides a free week-long retreat for residents, following a referral process. The service offers social, not clinical, support. There are support workers on site during office hours who can refer and signpost residents to other services. It is commendable that the landlord can offer respite stays to residents, as they promote self-care and may prevent residents from reaching a crisis point.
The landlord says that it is common practice for it to promote use of the wellbeing house to residents who may need respite from their day-to-day lives for a variety of reasons. In email correspondence and its complaint responses, the landlord offered to refer the resident to the wellbeing house several times.
In its initial offers of a referral, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident the nature of support offered in the wellbeing house, and about the kinds of interactions she might have with other residents if she stayed there. Doing this may have given her a better understanding of the offer, so she could make an informed decision.
However, the landlord did offer to arrange for the resident to speak to staff from the wellbeing house on at least two occasions. It also provided the resident with a website link to its webpage about the wellbeing house in its stage 1. These steps were reasonable to ensure that the resident had access to information about the offer.
The resident felt the landlord’s offer of a respite stay showed a lack of understanding of the effects and impact of CPTSD. She felt the wellbeing house would not be a helpful environment for her and could have caused her additional distress due to the presence of, and shared facilities with, other residents. She said that the staff were not adequately trained to support her. She also said that returning to her home after respite to an environment where she felt unsafe would cause her further trauma.
We do not doubt the resident’s assessment that staying in the wellbeing house would not be helpful for her and could have caused her additional distress. People know the most about their own circumstances and whether offers of support are suitable for them.
In its correspondence to the wellbeing house, the landlord said that it was concerned that the resident’s situation with her neighbours was impacting on her wellbeing, and this was the reason that it thought she may benefit from a respite stay. There is no indication that at the point of making the offer of a referral, the landlord considered whether the environment was suitable for the resident’s specific needs. This is not unreasonable. Although landlords should have a good general awareness of disability, mental health, and neurological differences, they are not subject matter experts. Additionally, the officers referring the resident did not ultimately decide if the referral would be accepted, as staff at the wellbeing house complete a suitability assessment before agreeing resident stays on a case-by-case basis.
The resident also felt the landlord’s offer was inadequate as the issues with her neighbours were unresolved. While the resident’s distress at the ongoing situation is understandable, the landlord’s records do not indicate that it considered the matter to be resolved. For example, it had extended the acceptable behaviour contracts of her neighbours. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to make the offer of a respite stay, as it was a supplementary action to its ongoing work and the landlord was concerned about the ongoing impact of the ASB on the resident.
Although the resident felt the offer was unsuitable for her, it is clear there was no obligation for the resident to accept the landlord’s offer of a referral for a respite stay. For this reason, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s offer of a respite stay in its wellbeing house.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It says it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days. This aligns with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on our website, which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaints handling.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out 3 circumstances where it uses a 1-stage process, rather than a 2-stage process. These are; complaints made about a member of staff, a contractor, or where a complaint is about a policy. In these circumstances, the landlord issues a stage 2, but not a stage 1 response. This does not align with the Code, which says that 2-stage processes are ideal. The landlord could consider self-assessing to ensure its own processes align with the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response 18 working days after it received the resident’s complaint. This was outside of its 10-day policy deadline. It did not contact the resident when it knew it would not be able to meet the deadline to let her know when to expect a response. It should have done this, as it would have managed her expectations. Whilst any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, and the landlord should have told the resident that they would not be able to respond on time, overall, the delay was not excessive.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response 20 working days after the resident told it she was dissatisfied with her stage 1 response. This was appropriate, as it met the landlord’s policy timescale.
The landlord’s complaint responses addressed issues the resident complained about in 3 separate complaint forms. This was a pragmatic and reasonable approach taken by the landlord to offer the resident a timely resolution to her concerns.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that if the resident was still unhappy, she could contact a ‘designated person’ or, after the case had been closed for 8 weeks, she could refer it directly to our Service. On 1 October 2022, a change in the law removed the requirement to contact a designated person or wait eight weeks before accessing this Service. The landlord’s response was sent on 26 October 2022, so the advice it gave was inaccurate, and this could have delayed the resident being able to access our Service. If it has not already done so, the landlord should ensure it updates its complaint response templates to reflect the legal change.
Cumulatively, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge its delayed stage 1 response, or keep the resident informed when it was delayed, and the incorrect information in its final response, amount to service failure. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 in compensation for the inconvenience this caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s offer of a stay at the wellbeing house.
2. The landlord’s handling of serving court papers on the resident.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of breaches of her neighbour’s acceptable behaviour contract.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident £50 for the impact of its complaints handling failures.
The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
The landlord must ensure it does not refer to residents contacting a designated person, or waiting 8 weeks before contacting our Service, in its complaints responses in future.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman is currently reviewing the Complaint Handling Code. When it is published on 1 April 2024, the landlord should review its complaints policy and procedure to its complaints process aligns with the new Complaint Handling Code.