Evolve Housing + Support (202200303)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200303

Evolve Housing + Support

23 February 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 landlords’ managing agent’s:
1. Provision of support to the resident.
2. Handling of the resident’s eviction from the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords’ managing agent’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident had a licence agreement with the landlord, a housing association, which commenced on 15 July 2021. The landlord took possession of the property in March 2021.
The property was supported accommodation. It was owned by a landlord who delegated its responsibilities to provide support to a managing agent. The managing agent is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The provision of support was a condition of the resident’s licence agreement. The support did not include medication or personal care.
The resident’s mother acted as his appointed representative. For the purposes of this report both the resident and his representative are referred to as ’the resident’, except where it had been necessary to distinguish between them to aid understanding of events.
The resident has a number of physical and mental health diagnoses.

Summary of events

On 10 September 2021 the managing agent made a file note regarding a discussion with the resident about his lack of engagement.
The managing agent’s file note of 6 January 2022 says that the resident called staff to report that his hot water was not working. However, when staff went to check, he declined to allow access and said the water was in order.
On 19 January 2022 the managing agent emailed the resident to let him know that staff had entered his room in his absence to check the hot water.
On 28 January 2022 the resident submitted an online complaint form to the managing agent. He said he had previously requested that no one enter his room because it would be a risk to his immune system. He was therefore dissatisfied to learn that staff had entered his room without consent.
The managing agent replied on 31 January 2022 and confirmed that a complaint had been raised about staff entering the property. It said it would respond within 10 days. It reminded the resident that under the terms of his licence agreement he was obliged to provide access to staff.
The managing agent’s records show that on 4 February 2022 a safeguarding alert was raised due to concerns about the resident’s ability to manage his finances.
The managing agent’s file note of 4 February 2022 says that its contractor attended to check the resident’s toilet. The resident had asked it to check the boiler “due to hard water.” The resident was concerned he would get legionnaires disease and wanted it fixed. The resident slammed the living room door and shouted at the contractor causing him to leave because he felt unsafe.
On 8 February 2022 the resident told staff he had been given prescriptions for an extreme dust condition and that staff should not enter his property. The managing agent explained that it had to enter the property to carry out health and safety and welfare checks. The resident remained adamant that staff should not enter. He asked it to contact his GP to obtain his medical information. It advised this could not be done without him being present to give consent.
On 8 February 2022 the resident emailed the managing agent to say that no one must enter his flat.
On 8 February 2022 the managing agent emailed the resident and referred him to a previous email which it said explained the terms of his licence agreement. It said that same email was its response to his complaint of 28 January. It went on to set out the health and safety implications of not allowing staff into his room. It agreed it would contact his GP to try to obtain further information about his medical conditions. However, it said the GP was unlikely to provide them without him being present. It suggested that the resident make an appointment to attend his GP with his support worker.
It pointed out that under the terms of his licence agreement he had to allow all staff access to his flat at any time. It said if he failed to do so a Notice to Determine (NTD) would be served. It advised the resident that if he was “not in a position” to adhere to the terms of his licence, he had the right to relinquish his licence and find alternative accommodation.
The managing agent’s certificate of service shows that NTD was served on 8 February 2022. The NTD confirmed that the resident was required to leave by 7 March 2022. It said he would need to collect his belongings within 7 days. If he did not, it would dispose of the items without further notice. It said he could appeal by writing to the named officer no later than 12 February.
The managing agent’s notes show that it raised a safeguarding referral on 9 February 2022.
On 9 February 2022 the managing agent emailed the resident to confirm that it had served him with NTD for breaching the terms of his licence agreement and attached a copy to the email. It said it was happy to meet to discuss the notice.
A file note titled ‘support agreement’ dated 9 February 2022 set out details of the final warning issued to the resident. It set out the incident on 4 February and the resident’s decision not to allow staff access on 6 January and 8 February 2022 as breaches of the terms of the licence. It set out steps the resident should take in response to the warning, including engaging with staff and not climbing through the window. It noted that the consequences of not adhering to the agreement would be eviction. The situation was to be reviewed on 8 March.
On 9 February 2022 the resident emailed the managing agent to make a formal complaint, including:
1. The managing agent did not contact social services despite promises to liaise with external services on a care plan.
2. The managing agent did not engage with his family to try to encourage engagement.
3. The managing agent did not carry out supervision of his support worker to ensure that progress was being made with his support.
On 10 February 2022 the managing agent emailed the resident to say that a stage 2 complaint would be raised. A response would be issued within 15 working days.
On 16 February 2022 the resident told the managing agent he had not received the NTD which the managing agent said it had emailed to him. The managing agent forwarded him a further copy that same day and offered to meet to discuss the situation.
On 17 February 2022 the resident wrote to the managing agent to appeal service of the NTD. He did not feel it had exercised its duty of care to him as a vulnerable adult. He said it had not identified a deterioration in his mental health and had therefore not responded appropriately. Instead of trying to resolve the issues the managing agent had served an NTD.
He said the deadline to appeal the NTD was 12 February and he was given the name of the officer whom the appeal should be addressed to. He said that due to his distress, he accidentally sent his email requesting the contact details of the named officer to the wrong recipients. He queried why contact details were not included in the NTD.
The managing agent’s file note dated 17 February 2022 stated that it had asked the resident why he was using his window as a door but he had not answered.
On 18 February 2022 the managing agent emailed the resident to check he was ok because he had failed to engage when it saw him earlier that day. It suggested he speak with his GP to obtain information about his medical conditions and to ask for support with is mental health. It said it wanted to work with him to prevent the NTD from progressing any further.
On 21 February 2022 the managing agent emailed the resident to confirm receipt of his request to appeal the NTD. On 22 February it emailed again to confirm that his appeal was being considered. It said it would provide notification of the outcome in due course.
The managing agent’s records show that on 3 March 2022 it spoke to the community mental health team who said they had not received a safeguarding referral for the resident. The managing agent requested an assessment of the resident’s mental health be carried out.
The managing agent’s records show that on 6 March 2022 the resident asked staff to stop carrying out daily welfare checks and to take him off its welfare list. Also on 6 March 2022 the resident was seen accessing his property through the window.
The managing agent’s records show that when it knocked on the resident’s door on 7 March 2022 he said he could not answer because he was ill and last time staff went inside they “let in all the germs.” He was asked not to use the window as an entry or exit point.
On 7 March 2022 the managing agent emailed the resident to ask to meet to discuss next steps. It referred to his lack of engagement and urged him to engage.
On 8 March 2022 the resident was seen exiting the property through his window.
The managing agent’s record dated 9 March 2022 state that the resident was spoken to while he was in his flat. He would not answer the door to staff but agreed to speak through the door. They discussed the resident’s use of his window to go in and out of his flat.
The managing agent’s file note dated 12 March 2022 stated that the resident was seen climbing out of his window to throw rubbish in the bin.
On 14 March 2022 the resident was admitted to hospital.
The managing agent issued a stage 2 complaint response on 17 March 2022 (an error meant it was incorrectly dated 14 March 2021). It apologised for the delay in providing its response which was due to a key member of staff involved being on leave. The main points were as follows:
1. It allocated the resident the most suitable support worker, based on his complex needs. He refused to engage with any staff members therefore there was no benefit in changing his support worker.
2. It raised a safeguarding alert with social services on 10 September 2021 regarding concerns of financial abuse.
3. During September to December 2021 there were no concerns about the resident’s behaviour, only that he rarely engaged with keywork sessions. It was only at the end of December 2021 that conversations between the resident and staff suggested his mental health was declining.
4. Safeguarding alerts were raised on 9 and 17 February 2022 regarding concerns about his mental health.
5. The support worker encouraged the resident to contact his GP but he did not respond.
6. On 9 September 2021 it spoke to the resident to discuss his not staying at his accommodation or keeping appointments with this support worker.
7. Residents were required to engage with support as per the terms of their licence agreement.
8. It was satisfied that the support worker had done all they could do engage with the resident and to update is family, within the constraints of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
9. The resident had breached its health and safety procedure by refusing entry to staff and contractors into his room and this was why it served NTD.
10. The resident’s support worker met regularly with their team manager to discuss any concerns and appropriate actions were put in place. Concerns were also discussed daily in handovers to coordinate a team approach to support and risk management.
11. The support worker tried “on many occasions” to contact the resident’s GP in his presence. The resident refused all offers of support and declined to attend the GP surgery accompanied by his support worker.
The managing agent emailed the resident on 17 March 2022 to advise his belongings needed to be removed within 7 days.
On 18 March 2022 the resident’s representative emailed the managing agent to confirm that she had tried to contact it to discuss the resident’s situation but she heard nothing back. She said that during a call to the managing agent on 17 March it advised her that belongings would need to be removed within 5 days otherwise they would be disposed of. She then received an email saying she had 7 days.
On 21 March 2022 the resident’s representative emailed the managing agent to request an extension of time with regards to the removal of the belongings.
An internal email dated 21 March 2022 states that during the 28 day notice period the resident continuously used his living room window as an entrance and exit which was a breach of health and safety. The managing agent had enforced the NTD because of the ongoing breaches. It referred to a phone call with the resident’s father on 17 March during which he was told the resident had 7 days to collect his items. The 7 days cited in the NTD in relation to storage of items expired on 14 March however, it used its discretion to extend the period.
On 25 March 2022 (an error meant the letter was incorrectly dated 14 March 2021) the managing agent issued a second stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. On 8 February 2022 it sent an email to the local authority to advise that NTD would be issued to the resident that day. It also requested a professionals meeting to ensure that the resident would be supported.
2. The resident called on 15 March 2022. It returned the call that same day and left a voicemail explaining it would store his belongings for 7 days. It tried to call again later that day but there was no answer.
3. The resident’s father called on 17 March 2022 and was advised it would store the items for 7 days.
4. It was sympathetic to the resident’s situation which is why it allowed a 7 day extension from when the NTD expired on 7 March 2022, as stated in the notice.
5. It had agreed that because it could not contact the resident it would hold his belongings until contact was made. This is why it extended the time by a further 7 days from the date the resident’s father called on 17 March 2022, not 5 as the resident said.
6. It was still storing the resident’s possessions because the resident’s representative failed to collect them despite accessing his room on 18 March 2022.
7. It would store the belongings until 25 March 2022.
On 17 May 2022 the resident emailed this Service to express dissatisfaction with the managing agent’s response. He said it had evicted him the same week he was admitted to hospital and therefore his eviction was not legal. The resident’s representative informed the managing agent on 14 March that the resident was in hospital and was unable to collect his belongings. Had the resident’s representative not called the managing agent on 11 March it would have disposed of the items.
In an email to this Service on 21 April 2023 the managing agent confirmed that the resident’s original complaint was investigated at a “local level” and a stage 1 response was issued.
In an email to this Service on 17 January 2024 the managing agent clarified errors regarding the dates of its stage 2 responses. It said that it responded to the resident’s first complaint of 9 February 2022 on 17 March and to the second complaint of 18 February, on 25 March. It also confirmed that due to the nature of the complaints, it decided to proceed straight to stage 2 on both occasions. It referred to section 6.3 of its complaints, comments and suggestions policy as its justification for doing so.
The resident’s current housing status is not known.

Assessment and findings

Managing agent’s obligations, policies and procedures

The managing agent’s support planning policy says that:
1. Residents should be placed at the centre of its support. This should be reflected in all records and interactions, including but not limited to: writing staying safe plans, key work notes and daily contact records, agreeing actions and review dates, and support planning.
2. The resident should be invited to a case conference held by the key worker and senior worker or manager to discuss reasons for non-engagement.
The resident’s licence agreement contains the following clauses:
1. “You and members of your household will not behave or threaten to behave in a violent, menacing or abusive manner in the accommodation or in the locality towards any person who is lawfully in or in the locality of the accommodation, including your neighbours and our staff, agents and contractors and you will not allow visitors to the accommodation to behave in this way.”
2. “You will co-operate with us and any other relevant agencies with regard to the provision of any support services to you and you will accept such services. If you do not co-operate or accept these services, you will be in breach of the terms of this agreement and the licence may be terminated.”
3. “Either you or we can terminate the licence by giving the other party 28 days’ notice in writing. We may terminate the licence if the resident breaches the terms of the agreement and/or if their behaviour causes a risk to the health or safety of any person.”
4. The resident has the right to appeal being served with notice. They should set out the reasons for the appeal in writing within 7 days.
5. “That if any of your possessions (or the possessions of any other person) are left at the accommodation at the end of the licence period or when you have moved out, we will treat those possessions as having been abandoned and can dispose of them as we see fit (this may include destroying them) as soon as the licence period ends. You will be charged for any costs that we incur.”
The managing agent’s policy and procedure on tenancy management sets out its approach to a breach of licence conditions, as follows:
1. Warnings should follow a process, starting with a verbal warning and Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA). However, the process can start with later stage warnings if determined by completion of an Alternative Response Checklist (ARC).
2. The Team Manager or Team Leader must complete a Licence Agreement Termination form (LAT). This form describes the areas of the licence agreement that were breached, and the support provided to the customer to sustain their licence.
3. Following an appeal of the decision to serve notice, the manager must make a decision within 4 working days. They should contact the resident to give them the outcome of the appeal.
The managing agent’s complaints, comments and suggestions policy (complaints policy) sets out a 2 stage complaint process. It says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 15 working days. A template letter should be used for stage 1 complaint responses.
Section 6.3 of the managing agent’s complaints policy says “The colleague responsible for receiving, investigating, responding to, and recording complaints will usually be a manager or colleague from the service, however if the complaint involves the manager of the service or a more senior manager or Director, or if the complaint is particularly serious in nature, the housing management and rental income manager will pass it to an appropriate member of senior management team or leadership team to investigate.”
The management agreement between the landlord and managing agent says that:
1. The managing agent shall assist the landlord with any legal action it takes (at its discretion) against any resident or other person, including preparing and delivering notices.
2. The landlord is responsible for taking legal action against residents and third parties. “The landlord will decide, in its absolute discretion, whether to take such action in any individual case.”
It also says that the managing agent should deal with any complaints it receives from the residents. Any complaint that is not resolved will be referred to the landlord. The managing agent is solely responsible for dealing with any complaints regarding care and support.

Scope of the investigation

This Service is unable to determine if the managing agent had the authority to serve the notice nor if the notice was valid. We are also unable to determine if the licence was excluded from the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 allowing the landlord to evict without a court order. Therefore, we are unable to determine if the eviction was unlawful. The purpose of this investigation is to consider whether the managing agent acted in a fair and reasonable way given the circumstances. Therefore, if the resident wishes to pursue this as part of their complaint they may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Provision of support

The managing agent’s support planning policy says that it will reflect its commitment to placing the resident at the centre of its support via a number of methods.
This investigation has seen evidence of staying safe plans including one dated 4 February 2022. It has also seen evidence of safeguarding alerts which were appropriately raised on 10 September 2021 and 9 February 2022. Keyworkers have kept detailed logs of their interactions with the resident, for example 10 September 2021, 4, 17, 23, 24 February, 6, 7, 12 March 2022. There are also a number of daily contact records which correspond with the managing agent’s welfare checks.
However, the managing agent has not provided evidence that it had held regular formal reviews to develop action plans and support planning. This is inappropriate because this is a requirement under its support planning policy. Furthermore, in its complaint response to the resident of 17 March 2022 the managing agent said that the support worker met regularly with their team manager to discuss concerns and put appropriate actions in place. It also said that concerns were discussed in daily handovers. This investigation has not seen any evidence that this has taken place which is a failure which raises a concern about record keeping.
Had the managing agent progressed these actions, as required by its policy, it would have been able to formally review and document the resident’s needs and its subsequent response. This would have provided an opportunity to ensure its decision making was transparent. For example, in respect of the resident’s lack of engagement, it would have been able to establish a clear and meaningful audit trail of steps taken to support him and his subsequent response.
In its complaint response of 17 March 2022 the managing agent said it tried to re-engage with the resident when his mental health started to deteriorate. The evidence shows that it took specific action to try to increase the resident’s level of engagement on 10 September 2021, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18 February 2022. This was in addition to the regular welfare checks that took place and was reasonable in the circumstances.
Given the resident’s increasing lack of engagement and the apparent deterioration in his mental health the managing agent encouraged him to seek assistance from his GP on 8 and 18 February 2022. In its email of 8 February it suggested that the support worker visit with him to assist however, he declined to contact his GP. It was reasonable of the managing agent to set out the difficulties it would experience in obtaining relevant information from the GP without his consent, and to ask for the resident’s assistance in doing so.
The managing agent’s support planning policy says that a resident who is not engaging should be invited to a case conference to discuss the reasons for non-engagement. There is no evidence that the managing agent did so which was a failure. Had it offered the resident the option of attending a case conference, and he had attended, it would have provided an opportunity to reiterate the need to adhere to the terms of his licence agreement. Had the resident not engaged with the case conference, the managing agent would have been able to log his decision and consider alternative options.
The level of day to day support provided to the resident was generally appropriate. There is evidence that the managing agent tried to increase the resident’s level of engagement and that is raised safeguarding referrals where necessary. The resident’s licence agreement stated that he must co-operate with support services provided to him therefore the onus was on him to engage.
However, the managing agent failed to adhere to its support planning policy in terms of formal reviews, support planning and supervision. This had an adverse effect on the resident who was disadvantaged by not being given the opportunity to benefit from these processes. The failures amount to maladministration and, taking into account the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the managing agent has been ordered to pay £350 compensation.

Handling of eviction

The management agreement sets out that the landlord has “absolute discretion” to decide whether enforcement action should be taken. There is evidence that throughout February 2022 the landlord was copied into emails about service of the NTD and the resident’s subsequent appeal. However, there is no evidence that it responded. Therefore, this investigation cannot determine that it was aware of the managing agent’s actions. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any formal consultation with the landlord by the managing agent to seek authority to serve NTD and to take enforcement action. Given its obligations under the management agreement it would have been appropriate to seek written authority, that it did not do so was a failure.
The managing agent’s tenancy management policy and procedure sets out 6 stages which should be followed before a resident is served with NTD. It notes that the process can start part way through, provided that an ARC is completed. It also states that an ABA should be in place alongside a final written warning.
This investigation has not been provided with evidence that the managing agent followed the formal process before issuing a final written warning. The support agreement (final warning) dated 9 February 2022 did not refer to any previous actions or warning. If the managing agent’s position was that it decided it was reasonable to move straight to a final warning, there is no evidence that it had completed an ARC. Furthermore, there is no evidence that an ABA was issued alongside the warning. There is also no evidence that the managing agent completed a LAT as set out in the policy and procedure.
The managing agent did not follow its policy and therefore, the decision to issue a final warning was inappropriate. This was because it could not demonstrate that its response was fair and proportionate in the circumstances. This was particularly important given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the need to have regard to the Equality Act 2010.
The NTD served on 8 February 2022 advised the resident that he could appeal the notice by writing to the named officer by 12 February, giving 4 days. The resident’s licence agreement says that the resident would have 7 days to make an appeal. Therefore, the resident should have been given a further 3 days, with the appeal due by 15 February. This was a failure which caused additional distress to the resident.
Furthermore, there were no contact details provided for the named officer within the NTD which was inappropriate. The lack of information caused the resident to delay appealing his notice until 17 February 2022 because he made an error when he sent an email to request contact details for the named officer.
These errors caused distress and frustration to the resident. However, the evidence shows that the detriment caused did not include failure to provide a service. This is because on 21 February 2022 the managing agent confirmed it accepted his appeal request.
The following day, 22 February 2022, the managing agent emailed the resident to confirm that his appeal was being considered. The managing agent’s tenancy management policy and procedure say that following any appeal a manager must make a decision within 4 working days. They must tell the resident the outcome of their appeal.
This investigation has not seen any evidence relating to the manager’s review of the resident’s appeal or any form of notification telling him of the outcome. This was inappropriate because it showed a lack of regard to the significant distress caused to the resident. This is because he would have reasonably hoped the NTD may not be enforced as a result of his appeal. Furthermore, in not following its appeals process the managing agent did not behave fairly and reasonably towards the resident. This was particularly inappropriate given its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
The resident was admitted to hospital on 14 March 2022. His licence agreement stated that the managing agent would remove any possessions left in the property at the end of the licence period. The NTD stated that the resident had 7 days from expiry of the notice to remove his belongings, by 14 March. Following a call from the resident’s father on 17 March it used its discretion to extend this by a further 7 days, which was reasonable.
However, there is no evidence that the managing agent communicated with the resident or his representative to confirm the formal termination of his licence. Given that the resident did not leave of his own volition it is reasonable to conclude that he did not voluntarily give possession of the property. Given the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the managing agent to clarify its position with regards to it taking possession of the property. This was particularly important given the managing agent’s responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
The managing agent did not obtain authority from the landlord to serve NTD or to take possession of the property. It did not follow its policy and procedure in relation to the decision to serve the resident with NTD or the subsequent appeals process. Therefore, the resident did not benefit from a process based on fair and proportionate decision supported by the managing agent’s policies and procedures. This was a failure that had a serious detrimental impact on the resident.
The managing agent took possession of the property at a time when the resident was particularly vulnerable having been admitted to hospital. The adverse effect caused to the resident was compounded by the fact that it did not communicate effectively about its final decision to take possession. Furthermore, it did not have regard to its obligations under the Equalities Act 2010 throughout the process.
There were a number of serious failures, each one causing distress to the resident. Cumulatively, they had a significant long term emotional and physical impact on the resident. The failures amount to severe maladministration.
Having considered the number and serious nature of the landlord’s failures, the significant detriment caused to the resident and the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the managing agent has been ordered to pay the resident £3000 compensation.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 January 2022 about staff entering his property without his consent. The managing agent replied on 31 January to say it had raised a complaint and that it would respond within 10 days. However, there is no evidence that it did so.
In its email to the resident of 8 February 2022 it referred to a prior email it had sent which it said was its response to the complaint. In an email to this Service on 21 April 2023 the managing agent said it was investigated at a local level and a stage 1 was issued. This investigation has not seen a response which adhered to its complaints policy in terms of a ‘template based’ stage 1 response. The managing agent failed to provide a service to the resident which was unreasonable.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that good complaint handling promotes a positive relationships with residents. The managing agent’s failure to provide a complaint response suggested to the resident that it did not take his complaint seriously, undermining its relationship with the resident. Not feeling heard or understood was particularly detrimental to the resident given the issues around engagement.
The resident made a further complaint on 9 February 2022. The managing agent issued a stage 2 complaint response dated 14 March 2021 however, it has confirmed to this Service that it should read 17 March 2022. The response was issued 26 working days after the complaint was made, 11 working days over the managing agent’s target. The managing agent appropriately offered an apology for the delay and offered an explanation.
The resident made a further complaint on 17 February 2022. The managing agent issued a second stage 2 complaint response dated 14 March 2021 which referred to a complaint dated 18 March 2022. It has confirmed to this Service that it should be dated 25 March 2022 and refer to the complaint dated 18 February 2022. Its response was issued 25 days after the complaint was made, 10 days over its target. On this occasion the managing agent did not acknowledge and/or apologise for the delay in issuing the complaint response which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
Section 3.4 of the Code says that residents are more likely to be satisfied with complaint handling if the person dealing with their complaint is competent, empathetic and efficient. It is accepted that human error occurs from time to time. However, in this case the managing agent repeated the mistake it made on its first stage 2 complaint response again on its second response. Furthermore, not only did it fail to learn from the mistake it made the first time, it made a further error in the second response. This was because the date of the complaint it referred to was incorrect. The presence of these errors did not give the resident confidence that the managing agent had taken care when investigating his complaint.
Furthermore, despite having a 2 stage complaint process the managing agent decided to respond to both complaints at stage 2. Neither of them appeared to follow on from the reported stage 1 complaint response as they were of an entirely different nature and made no reference to it.
In the managing agent’s email to this Service on 17 January 2024 it said that 6.3 of its complaints policy says that “a complaint will first be investigated at stage one of the complaints procedure. There may be exceptional circumstances where a complaint will proceed straight to stage two, such as if the complaint involves a member of CMT, Service Manager, or if the complaint is particularly serious in nature.”
The managing agent has misinterpreted section 6.3. This is because it sets out what levels of seniority apply when responding to stage 1 complaints and in what circumstances. Therefore, there was no basis for the managing agent to miss stage 1 of the complaints process and it did not adhere to the 2 stages set out in its policy.
Furthermore, the Code requires its members to have a 2 stage complaints procedure. The Ombudsman’s view is that a complaints procedure with only 1 stage poses a number of risks. Only allowing 1 response to a complaint will be unfair if this does not allow sufficient opportunity for residents to respond to the managing agent’s position, particularly where this includes information that may be new to the resident or where an issue has been overlooked.
The management agreement states that any complaints which remain unresolved, and which do not relate to care and support, should be referred to the landlord. The managing agent failed to advise the resident that he could escalate the elements of his complaint not related to care and support to the landlord which was a failure.
The managing agent failed to provide a service to the resident in respect of his complaint of 28 January 2022 which adversely affected him. Its complaint responses contained inaccurate information, it failed to follow its complaints procedure by removing stage 1 of the process and it failed to signpost the resident to the landlord’s complaint procedure where appropriate. The managing agent has failed to acknowledge all its failings. It has therefore failed to put things right and demonstrate that it had learnt from its mistakes in order to prevent the same issues reoccurring.
The complaint handling failures identified in this report amount to maladministration. Considering the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, the managing agent has been ordered to pay the resident £350 for the detriment caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the managing agent’s provision of support to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration with the managing agent’s handling of the resident’s eviction from the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the managing agent’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The managing agent failed to adhere to its support planning policy in its provision of support to the resident. It did not hold a case conference to discuss the resident’s lack of engagement. It did not hold regular formal reviews to generate action plans.
The managing agent failed to follow its policy and procedure in relation to the resident’s eviction. Therefore, it cannot demonstrate that its response was fair and proportionate in the circumstances. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident regarding the process. It failed to have regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
The managing agent did not respond to the resident’s first complaint. It made errors in its stage 2 complaint responses. It failed to give the resident the opportunity to resolve his complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the managing agent is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £3700 compensation, comprised as follows:
  1. £350 for the adverse effect caused by the failures in the managing agent’s provision of support to the resident.
  2. £3000 for the disadvantage caused to the resident by the managing agent’s failure to follow its policy and procedure in relation to the eviction.
  3. £350 for the adverse effect caused by the complaint handling failures.
2. Arrange for the chief executive to provide an apology to the resident, to be provided in person or in writing in accordance with the resident’s wishes.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the managing agent should carry out staff training on:
1. Support planning to ensure that it complies with requirements set out its policy.
2. Complaint handling, to include the need to adhere to the complaint stages and response times set out in its complaints policy.
3. The eviction process, to include the decision to evict and the appeals process.