Gentoo Group Limited (202219465)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219465

Gentoo Group Limited

24 January 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 handling of:
1. the resident’s succession requests following reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) at their property.
2. the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, when discussing their mental health.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and occupies a 2-bedroom property. At the time of the complaint, the resident lived at her grandmother’s property and had been since November 2021. This property is also owned by the landlord. Sadly, the resident’s grandmother passed away in August 2022. The resident has mental health conditions. The resident’s mother acted as her representative during the complaint – both will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
On 30 August 2022 the resident informed the landlord that when her grandmother became ill, she had decided to move in with her. She also stated that over the past year, she had experienced ASB at her property, including bricks through the windows, and attempted break-ins. She advised that she felt fearful of going back to her own property. She added that when she moved into her grandmother’s property the landlord told her that she would have to live at her grandmother’s property for a year to be eligible for succession. She asked the landlord if it could use its discretion and allow her to terminate her tenancy and succeed to her grandmother’s tenancy.
On 8 September 2022 the landlord met with the resident to discuss why it would not grant a succession. It stated that she already had a tenancy in her own right and that she had not lived at her grandmother’s property for 12 months. It also discussed the ASB she had experienced at her property and her mental health concerns and offered to refer her to its victim support team. In addition, it recommended that she register on its allocation system so that she could bid on new properties.
The same day the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In summary, she said that in July 2022, she reported an incident to the police involving an air gun which had subsequently led to her being targeted by the perpetrators. She said that the landlord’s staff member at the meeting had implied that she was being untruthful about the incidents and that she found their manner to be lacking in empathy and uncaring. She added that the staff member had shown a lack of knowledge and understanding of her mental health and that she was recognised as having a disability under the Equality Act. In addition, she stated that she was unsafe to return to her property and made a formal request to succeed her grandmother’s tenancy.
On 9 September 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
1. That a succession could only be completed once within the lifetime of a tenancy, and that it cannot be granted when the applicant has a current tenancy of their own.
2. Anybody applying for succession would need to provide proof that they have resided at the property for over 12 months.
3. It advised her to report any ASB or threats to the police and that it would contact the police to obtain information about the incidents she had reported.
4. It had made an urgent referral to its victim support team to assist her with her mental health and the ASB she had experienced.
5. It recommended that she register on its allocation system to apply for alternative properties that would meet her needs.
6. It apologised for any distress or upset this situation had caused.
In the resident’s escalation request of 13 September 2022, she said that despite her reports to the police the attacks on her property continued. She said that the landlord’s questions about her mental health and what medication she was on were demeaning and discriminatory. She also reiterated her concerns about the landlord’s staff member who she felt was insensitive. In addition, she felt that she was not supported properly when she expressed suicidal feelings.
On 14 September 2022 the landlord contacted the police for information on the reported incidents. On 29 September 2022, the landlord’s victim support team contacted the resident to offer support which was declined. In addition, the landlord stated that although it could only act in line with its housing policy and procedure it was dedicated to treating her case with compassion and sensitivity and arranged a follow-up meeting to discuss her housing situation.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord met with the resident and informed her that it would support her to find suitable alternative accommodation. It stated that although she could not succeed in her grandmother’s tenancy it would agree to award her to a priority banding on its housing list.
On 22 November 2022 the landlord issued its final response. It reiterated the reasons why she could not succeed her grandmother’s tenancy and in addition, it said:
1. Her grandmother’s property was a 2-bedroom family home and given a shortage of affordable accommodation in the city, it was required to follow its allocations policy.
2. That police had advised that there were 3 crimes reported but there were no recent issues, and they did not feel the resident was at risk at her property.
3. It agreed to use its discretion to award her a priority banding which would allow her to bid on properties as a priority applicant for 12 weeks.
4. The questions about her mental health and medication were asked to assist with the completion of a referral to its specialist support services and it apologised for any distress caused.
5. It had listened to the telephone call between her and its staff member where she felt that they had dismissed a comment made about ending her own life and it was satisfied that the staff member acted appropriately.
6. It was unable to confirm if the staff member had questioned the truthfulness of her claims of ASB and that the questions asked were to fully understand the situation so appropriate advice could be given.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 24 November 2022. She said that the landlord discriminated against her and dismissed her mental health or interrogated her demanding to know what treatment she was on. In addition, she said that the landlord had not helped her to remain in her grandmother’s property. She stated that the landlord was aware of the ASB but would not acknowledge the risk of her returning to her property. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to allow her to move into her grandmother’s property and for all employees of the landlord to be trained in mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the complaint to the landlord and this Service, the resident asserted that she felt discriminated against due to her mental health. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense in terms of alleged breaches of the Equality Act, as this is 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, including whether there is any evidence that the resident was treated less favourably than others in the same situation.

The resident’s succession requests following reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) at their property.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that residents who wish to report an incident of ASB will be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided and any safeguarding issues are identified. In addition, it states that it will work with its partners such as the police to resolve ASB.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy states that when a tenant dies their assured tenancy may be passed on to someone who has been living with the tenant. It also states that it may grant additional rights of succession to members of a tenant’s family such as a granddaughter, who resided with the tenant in the 12 months prior to their death. It adds that family members who are granted this additional right must have also occupied the tenant’s home as their principal home during these 12 months.
Following the resident’s request to succeed to her grandmother’s tenancy on 30 August 2022 the landlord met with the resident on 8 September 2022 to discuss her concerns. This was an appropriate and customer-focused approach to take. In summary, the landlord explained, that she had not lived at her grandmother’s property for the required 12 months and that she already had a tenancy of her own, meaning she did not meet the criteria for succession. Its records showed that the explanations provided were clear, accurate, and in line with its tenancy management policy.
In this meeting the resident explained that she wanted to succeed her grandmother’s tenancy because she felt fearful of returning to her own home due to historical incidents of crime and ASB. She asserted that a group of unknown individuals had damaged her property and were now targeting her. She added that she had reported these incidents to the police.
In response the landlord said it could look to support her by making an urgent referral to its victim support team and that it would contact the police to obtain information about the incidents. This was an appropriate response to her concerns. The landlord’s records showed that on 14 September 2022, it did contact the police for further information. It also stated that once the information was received it would make further contact with the resident to establish safeguarding needs. The landlord’s records showed that it arranged a follow-up appointment with the resident to discuss these concerns. In addition, its victim support team contacted the resident on 29 September 2022 to offer support to the resident which she declined. Overall, the landlord’s actions demonstrated that it assessed the resident’s risk to ensure the appropriate level of support was offered, in line with its policy. However, this Service has seen no evidence of a documented risk assessment in this case. This Ombudsman considers that in the circumstances it would have been appropriate for it to do so, therefore a recommendation has been made below.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord met with the resident again. She reiterated why she felt unsafe returning to her property. In response, the landlord said that although it was not possible for her to succeed her grandmother’s tenancy, it would offer her support to find suitable alternative accommodation and agreed to award her a priority 2 banding which would allow her to bid on properties as a priority applicant for 12 weeks. This was a fair approach from the landlord which showed that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord’s final response stated that the police had informed it that the resident had reported 3 crimes months earlier but there had been no recent reports, and they did not feel she was at risk in her own property. While this Service has seen no evidence to support this statement its records indicated that the resident was aware that the police believed it was safe for her to return to her property. The landlord recently informed this Service that this information was relayed to it verbally by the police. While it is likely that these conversations did take place, landlords must keep accurate case notes of such conversations. This is particularly important in cases such as these. Given this, a recommendation has been made below in respect of the landlord’s record-keeping.
On 2 December 2022 the resident agreed to return the keys to her grandmother’s property on 12 December 2022 but stated that she would be living in her car as she did not feel safe returning to her property. In response, the landlord agreed to award her a level 1 banding to allow her to bid on properties for 12 weeks as an urgent priority. The landlord’s records indicated that this led to a successful move for the resident in January 2023. This was a flexible and fair approach from the landlord and demonstrated that it listened to her concerns and considered all available options to help facilitate a move for her.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s succession requests following reports of ASB at their property was reasonable. It took a customer-focused approach by meeting with the resident to discuss her concerns. In addition, the explanations provided for declining her succession request were accurate and clear and it followed its policy in this respect. It also demonstrated a fair and flexible approach by supporting the resident with a move to alternative accommodation, which was appropriate in the circumstances. Additionally, its actions demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities throughout. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration for this aspect of the complaint.

The resident’s concerns about staff conduct, when discussing their mental health.

In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that the landlord had dismissed her mental health or interrogated her demanding to know what treatment she was on. Although, in this case, the Ombudsman is unable to assess what was said in face-to-face meetings and telephone conversations between the resident and the landlord, we can assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s final response stated that as part of its review, it had spoken with staff members present at the September 2022 meeting. It said that it was advised that none of the questions asked were meant to be intrusive or cause distress and added that these questions were asked to assist it with a referral to its specialist support services. This response was reasonable. While this Service has not seen evidence of this conversation the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a comprehensive file note from the meeting which showed that it asked various questions about the resident’s mental health. The file note demonstrated that these questions were asked so it could ascertain what support the resident may need. Given the circumstances, its actions were appropriate.
The resident also raised concerns that during a telephone call with the landlord, it dismissed a comment made about her ending her own life. The landlord’s final response stated that it had listened to this telephone call and was satisfied that the staff member had acted appropriately. Additionally, it provided a summary of what was said during this call and an explanation of why the staff member did not in this case raise an ‘‘adult concern’’. The landlord acted appropriately by listening to the call which demonstrated that it was taking her concerns seriously. Furthermore, it was appropriate for it to explain why it had not taken further action in this instance.
While the Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress this situation would have caused the resident, there was no evidence that the landlord dismissed her mental health or that she was treated less favourably than others in the same situation. Its handling of her concerns was reasonable, and the evidence showed that it took appropriate steps to access support for the resident. In addition, it demonstrated that it had acted fairly by investigating and responding to the issues raised. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, when discussing their mental health.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s succession requests following reports of ASB at their property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, when discussing their mental health.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure risk assessments are carried out and documented for all reported incidents of ASB.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)).