Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202201709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201709

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

30 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reportedly unacceptable behaviour.

Background

2. The resident holds a tenancy agreement on a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a residential block owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 30 January 2017. The landlord’s records show that the resident has learning disabilities.
3. The resident’s property suffered leaks from above, which took some time to resolve. These were the subject of a different complaint. The landlord sent its operatives to the property on 7 October 2021 to inspect the required works in the resident’s home.
4. Later that day, the landlord received reports from its operatives, who inspected the resident’s home. The operatives reported that the resident shouted abuse at the landlord and displayed aggressive and threatening behaviour towards the operatives, who left the property fearing for their safety. The operatives said they would return to the resident’s property, working in pairs.
5. On 15 October 2021, the landlord invited the resident to a meeting. The landlord also invited a support worker from a mental health charity, which it said was to support the resident during the meeting. The resident was handed a warning letter which said:
   1. Due to the incident at the resident’s home on 7 October 2021, the landlord would restrict contact with the resident. For 12 months operatives would only attend the resident’s home in pairs.
   2. The landlord was determined to ensure its employees could carry out their duties without fear. Therefore, it said the resident should have a support worker to represent him whenever the landlord or its operatives were due to attend the resident’s home.
   3. Should the landlord receive another report that the resident “engaged in conduct capable of causing a nuisance or an annoyance to employees”, the landlord would take legal action.
6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 October 2021 and said the landlord provoked him for two years due to the ongoing repairs. This was why he raised the previous complaint in September 2021. The resident said he named the officer who now gave him the warning letter as an act of retaliation. Furthermore, the resident said the landlord did not have consent to contact the charity on his behalf. The landlord treated this as an expression of dissatisfaction, which it dealt with under stage zero of its complaint policy.
7. The landlord responded on 1 December 2021 and said:
   1. The resident gave his consent to the landlord to liaise with the charity’s support officer regarding the repair issues at the resident’s home. The landlord recognised that this did not extend to inviting the support officer to attend the meeting on 15 October 2021. The landlord worked in the resident’s best interest by ensuring he had a relevant and known support worker present to ensure no further distress or a repeat of the previous incident. It has, however, reassured the resident that it has put measures in place to prevent a reoccurrence.
   2. The ongoing repairs were stressful for the resident, possibly leading to the resident’s outburst. Given these mitigating circumstances, it would reduce the restriction on the resident’s contact from the initial 12-month period to 3 months.
8. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 14 December 2021. He said:
   1. As the landlord briefed the support officer before the meeting started, it was clear to the resident that the charity was not called to support him.
   2. The landlord was victimising him.
   3. The resident felt intimidated by the charity attending the meeting.
9. The landlord responded with its first stage response on 24 December 2021 and said:
   1. Its staff felt intimidated by the resident’s inappropriate behaviour, and therefore, the warning letter was proportionate. It had already reduced the restriction from 12 months to 3 months and saw no reason to reduce this further.
   2. It recognised it should not have called the charity without the resident’s express consent. It upheld this part of the resident’s complaint and apologised for the distress caused. It offered £50 to the resident as a gesture of goodwill.
10. The resident initially asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 but later changed his mind. The resident then approached this service on 11 January 2022. Subsequently, this service asked the landlord to progress the complaint and issue its final response letter. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 March 2022 and advised that the complaint had now exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. It provided the resident with his referral rights for this service.
11. The resident contacted this service on 12 April 2022 and said the landlord involved the charity to exaggerate the seriousness of the incident of 7 October 2021. He had no prior relationship with the charity and did not consent for the landlord to contact support agencies on his behalf. To resolve the complaint, the resident would like increased compensation to reflect the level of distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the events: whether it complied with its policies, current legislation, and good practice, and whether its approach and actions were reasonable in the circumstances. The role of this service is not to determine whether the resident’s behaviour was unreasonable.
13. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord had victimised him. Unlike a court, this service cannot determine whether victimisation has taken place. This is a legal term better suited for a court to decide. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Policies and procedures

14. The landlord has a three-stage complaint process. Stage zero is the first informal de-escalation stage, where the landlord would attempt to resolve the complaint at the first point of contact. The resident is then free to progress the complaint to stage 1 and, if needed, to stage 2, the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process. In stage 2, the landlord would conduct a complaint hearing by a panel of its executive management team, head of service, and a tenant representative.
15. The landlord defines antisocial behaviour (ASB) as a “conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance […] and impact the landlord’s housing management function”. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy says the landlord is committed to preventing incidents of ASB and would take early intervention to provide the alleged perpetrators with an opportunity to address their behaviour and maximise the opportunity to sustain their tenancy. The landlord would use various tools, such as issuing a warning letter to achieve its aim.
16. The Ombudsman’s guidance to landlords on managing unacceptable behaviour says all residents should be dealt with fairly, honestly, consistently, and appropriately, including those whose actions are considered unacceptable. The guidance says: “Residents have a right to be heard, understood and respected. Whilst landlords have a duty to protect employees, they also have obligations towards residents. The landlord should show due regard to the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and an individual’s medical conditions and vulnerability. Any restrictions imposed on a resident’s contact should be appropriate to their circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reportedly unacceptable behaviour

17. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
18. In this case, the landlord acknowledged within its complaint responses that there were failings in its handling of the case. It wrote to the resident saying it recognised it did not have consent to contact a third-party support agency on behalf of the resident. The resident’s assertion remained that the landlord’s decision to issue him with the warning letter in the presence of the support charity amounted to victimisation.
19. According to the evidence, following the inspection of the resident’s property on 7 October 2021, the landlord received several reports from its operatives about the resident’s behaviour. The landlord had an obligation to act under its ASB policy. The landlord needed to ensure that the resident’s behaviour did not impact its housing management function and that its operatives could attend to their duties without fear and intimidation. The landlord decided to issue the resident with a warning letter, which was in accordance with its ASB policy.
20. When the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the ongoing repairs had provoked his outburst on 7 October 2021, the landlord reduced the restriction to 3 months. The landlord demonstrated that it balanced its duty to protect its employees with its duty towards the resident. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance to landlords on managing unacceptable behaviour and was appropriate.
21. This service has seen contemporaneous evidence that in the weeks leading up to the incident at the resident’s home on 7 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and consented to discuss the repair with the charity support officer who attended the meeting on 15 October 2021. The support officer wrote to the landlord on 6 October 2021, asking for an update about the progress of the ongoing repairs on the resident’s home. He also asked that the landlord update him following the inspection of the resident’s home on 7 October 2021.
22. On 11 October 2021, the support officer emailed the landlord again, asking for an update on the outcome of the inspection. The landlord responded that the inspection did not go as planned. At the resident’s request, the landlord was expected to update the support officer on the progress of the repair. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain to the support officer why the repairs at the resident’s home were delayed. The landlord acted appropriately here.
23. According to the evidence, the landlord maintained open, transparent, and timely communications with the support officer to progress the resident’s repairs. Although the resident was not asked whether he wanted the support officer to attend the meeting, he was familiar with the support officer, who evidently advocated for him. The records show that the landlord invited the support officer to the meeting to support the resident.
24. As the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses, the resident’s consent to discuss his case with the support officer did not extend to discuss the warning letter. Furthermore, on his tenancy agreement documents, the resident did not consent to the landlord to share his information with a third-party organisation. The landlord failed to obtain the resident’s consent, and this was not appropriate.
25. In its complaint response, the landlord identified the failure on its part. Consequently, it was required to put it right for the resident. The landlord has taken the following actions:
    1. It apologised to the resident for its failings. This was appropriate because it demonstrated that the landlord accepted responsibility for its failure and acknowledged the impact on the resident.
    2. It accepted the resident’s explanation of mitigating circumstances and reduced the restriction on the resident’s contact from the planned 12-month period to 3 months.
    3. It offered the resident £50 as a gesture of goodwill, which was in line with its compensation policy.
26. As part of its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed it had identified learning that it would take forward. It said it recorded a note on the resident’s account that it should not contact a third-party support agency on the resident’s behalf without his express permission. It also reminded the staff member involved in the incident of the correct procedure. Effective and positive complaint handling provides the landlord with the opportunity to improve its service delivery. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord utilised the complaint process and identified learning.
27. Overall, the landlord was responsible for acting on reports it received from its staff. It issued the warning letter in accordance with its ASB policy. It took appropriate steps to acknowledge mistakes and apologise for its shortcomings. The landlord’s redress included its apology, reduction of the restriction period to 3 months, and the gesture of goodwill payment. These measures together were appropriate for redressing the complaint.
28. It should be noted that there is no disputing how frustrating and inconvenient the ongoing leaks would have been for the resident. While it is recognised that this may not be the outcome the resident wished for, this service can only make decisions based on evidence.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b), the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reportedly unacceptable behaviour satisfactorily.

Recommendation

30. The landlord should pay the resident £50 in compensation if it has not done so already.