Home Group Limited (202015585)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015585

Home Group Limited

25 November 2021


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 resident complains about:
  1. the landlord refusing her father access into her property during the covid pandemic.
  2. the landlord’s failure to act accordingly in line with the Equality Act 2010.
  3. the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states ‘The ombudsman will not consider complaints which in his opinion concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings’, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The resident has raised concerns that under the Equality Act 2010 the landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to policies such as the no visitors rule, which places a person at a substantial disadvantage due to their disability. The resident has said a failure to make a reasonable adjustment is unlawful and amounts to discrimination. The Ombudsman is unable to decide on whether or not the landlord failed to act in line with the Equality Act 2010 as this would require expert knowledge on the laws regarding this situation and suggest the resident seeks legal advice should she wish to pursue the matter.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured short hold tenant with the landlord. The resident lives in self-contained housing, in a self-contained room with shared facilities.
  2. The resident provided a letter dated 7 September 2020 sent to all citizens. It cited the latest government advice and encouraged residents to seek support from family and friends in the first instance.
  3. A letter was sent to all residents in supported living from the landlord to advise that from 15 September 2020 the local authority rules were changing in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, preventing people from gathering together in the area. Residents would not be able to mix with people they did not live with, in their homes or gardens. The letter also advised that as the residents lived in shared accommodation, where they shared a kitchen, bathroom or lounge, they were unable to have a Support Bubble and residents could not have any visitors inside the property (except where allowed by law e.g. a tradesperson carrying out repairs). This included not having visitors in communal/shared facilities such as a living room or kitchen, as well as a resident’s private living space. The government viewed shared accommodation as a ‘household’ even if each resident had their own license agreement.
  4. The landlord has provided its risk assessment report for support residents during the Covid-19 pandemic. This was written on 4 August 2020 and reviewed on 15 September 2020 following updated local authority guidelines. The report indicates the safety measures for staff and residents during the pandemic and the local lockdown.
  5. The landlord has provided the Covid-19: PPE Risk Assessment and PPE Plan for the property that was reviewed on 15 September 2020. This indicates that the property is considered a high risk based on the customer group having mental health diagnosis’.
  6. The landlord has provided the Service with the residents Sensory Profile indicating her current needs and the support she requires.
  7. The landlord has also provided the Service with the resident’s support plan from the resident’s social worker which indicates complex needs and the level of care the resident requires. This document confirms the resident requires 18.5 hours support per week.

Summary of events

  1. On 15 September 2020 the resident was in contact with the landlord via email about the care arrangements for 16 September 2020. The landlord advised that as the resident lived in a supported accommodation, this was classed as one household. The landlord went on to explain to the resident that in accordance with Government guidelines and instructions from the local authority, no visitors were allowed into the property or the gardens. The landlord advised that these authority guidelines overrode any actions by the landlord and therefore had to be followed. While visits in the home were not permitted the landlord explained that the resident’s father could drop food at the house or pick the resident up to go for a meal as the Government guidelines did permit people to meet up in public settings with up to six people. It apologised for the inconvenience however explained that it needed to have strict measures in place to keep everyone safe.
  2. The resident’s father wrote back to the landlord on 15 September 2020 explaining the resident’s vulnerable situation and seeking guidance on how best to manage the matter as it would be difficult for the resident to leave the property. The landlord acknowledged his concerns and explained that as there were other residents with mental and physical support needs at the property, it needed to be consistent in its approach for safeguarding reasons. The landlord advised that it would seek further guidance on the matter and would update the resident and her father.
  3. At 9.36am on 16 September 2020 the landlord emailed an update to the resident’s father to confirm that the details of the situation were passed on to senior management the day prior, however no response had been received.. The landlord explained that it was still not in a position to grant access without advice. The resident’s father wrote back confirming he was arriving in the resident’s area between 11am and 12pm and planned to spend time with the resident offsite whilst waiting for a response.
  4. Email correspondence between the landlord and social services on 16 September 2020 at 10.37am shows that the landlord requested urgent guidance regarding the support the resident was receiving. A social services representative emailed the landlord at 11:09am to confirm that it was sourcing alternative care for when the resident’s usual social worker was not able to perform visits. There was no indication at that point that the resident could receive informal care from her family.
  5. The landlord provided a response to the resident and her father on 16 September 2020 at 12.10pm advising that after discussing the case with the Senior Management Team and the Policy Compliance Officer it was unable to allow the resident’s father access into the property. This was due to the local authority lockdown laws and the accommodation type that the resident was staying being classed as a large, supported accommodation with other vulnerable residents. It noted its visitor policy restricted support bubbles as its service was regarded as one household. The landlord confirmed the resident’s entitlement to 18.5 hours of care and support.
  6. It confirmed that the local lockdown restrictions did permit care to be provided to vulnerable people however the landlord would need confirmation from the resident’s social worker that the resident’s father would be providing consistent 18.5 hours of care and support to enable him to be the resident’s care and support provider. Without this confirmation from Social Services, the resident’s fathers visit would be regarded as a social visit which was against the law at that point. The landlord asked the resident to speak with her social worker to put her father in place as her care and support provider.
  7. The resident brought her complaint about the situation to the landlord on 16 September 2020. The Landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised it aimed to provide a response by 24 September 2020.
  8. On 22 September 2020 the landlord sought guidance around the resident’s support plan for informal care within the Adult Social Care plan. Whilst the landlord did not have a copy of the residents Adult Social Care plan as it is not the care provider, it found that there were no informal arrangements with family for her support goals set with the landlord. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that the resident was not receiving the full 18.5 hours of support required during the lockdown, support of meal preparation and flat support continued. It advised further that the failure of care and support hours not being fulfilled would need to be raised with social services as the landlord was not the care provider.
  9. The landlord provided a response on 24 September 2020. It explained the reasons that the resident’s father was unable to access her property. It made assurances that it was going to work with the resident’s social worker to discuss her care and support needs. The landlord confirmed this meeting would take place on 30 September 2020 and records show that it took place on that day and amendments were made to the resident’s support plan.
  10. The resident wrote back to the landlord on 18 November 2020 expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s first response. The resident acknowledged why the landlord classified her father’s visit as a social visit, however, explained that she did not feel that her personal circumstances were taken into consideration. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised it aimed to provide a response by 30 November 2020.
  11. The stage two response was issued on 1 December 2020 in which the landlord confirmed the steps it had taken in consideration of the resident’s circumstance which included:
  • The Senior Client Services Manager setting up regular multi-disciplinary team meetings with social worker, CPN, carer and Home Group colleagues to ensure that the resident’s support needs as an individual were met.
  • Social Services agreeing that the resident’s father’s address was recorded as a respite venue where the resident could choose to stay as an alternative to her own home, in line with Government guidance and the lockdown
  • Advice that further discussions would need to take place with social services during the resident’s multi-disciplinary meetings to agree alternative local carer arrangements should the resident’s current carer be unavailable during times of crisis
  • Confirmation that the landlord was working with social care professionals to ensure the resident’s care needs were reassessed which led to an increase in the resident’s care package to 4 hours each day.

Assessment and findings

The landlord refusing her father access into her property during the covid pandemic

  1. Based on the information provided, the Service acknowledges the resident’s level of support needed and appreciates the resident’s concerns around her care on 16 September 2020 when her social worker was unable to attend the property.
  2. The landlord has provided evidence to show that new restrictions were put in place in the resident’s area by the local authority on 15 September 2020. The landlord has a duty to ensure all residents within its supported accommodation were kept safe during the lockdown and it was reasonable for it to abide by the local authority guidelines during the lockdown.
  3. I note the resident provided a letter from the local authority dated 7 September 2020 which encouraged residents to seek support from family and friends in the first instance. This letter was prior to the full lock down that was put in place by the local authority on 15 September 2020. Therefore, the guidance in this letter cannot be relied upon as applicable on the date that the resident needed assistance,16 September 2020.
  4. According to the lockdown laws enforced on 15 September 2020, the resident was unable to have any visitors within the property unless it was her care provider, or any workers required to perform repair/maintenance works.
  5. Instructions for how the carers and social workers should manage the property during the lockdown period were stated within the risk assessment report and the Covid-19: PPE Risk Assessment and PPE Plan provided by the landlord to ensure the safety of residents and staff. Both documents were reviewed on 15 September 2020 in response to the new local lockdown rules. There was no guidance on visitors other than staff,.
  6. Looking at the resident’s support plan with the landlord, there is no information regarding access to any family members as care providers. As soon as the resident contacted the landlord about her father’s visit on 15 September 2020, it set out to establish whether her father could be allowed access. The landlord is not the resident’s care provider and therefore it was reasonable for it to contact social services to get more information about what contingencies were in place in instances that her designated social worker was unable to visit. As advised by the landlord, in the response from the social worker, there was no confirmation that the resident’s father could provide informal care.
  7. I appreciate that this situation was particularly difficult for the resident due to her specific needs and the effect of the pandemic restrictions on her wellbeing. It is the responsibility of the landlord to look after all the residents within its shared accommodation and the Service notes that the landlord’s process for managing care for all residents within the property should be streamlined. Therefore, it was fair for the landlord to explain that it had to consider the wellbeing of all the residents with respect to the local authority guidelines, following its decision to deny the resident’s father access.

The landlords handling of the complaint.

  1. The resident raised her complaint on 16 September 2020 and the landlord provided a response on 24 September 2020 as per its acknowledgment letter. This was within the timescale detailed in our complaints handling code.
  2. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 18 November 2020 and the landlord provided the response on 1 December 2020. Whilst the acknowledgment said the resident would get a response by 30 November 2020, the service does not consider that a one-day delay was unreasonable. I also note that the response was provided within the timeframes detailed in the complaint handling code for a stage two response.
  3. I have considered the contents of both the first and second responses from the landlord and the Ombudsman believes that the information contained in the letters were fair, reasonable and that the landlord was proactive about the resident’s situation. The landlord clarified the situation regarding the lockdown rules and the restrictions in place that meant the resident’s father was unable to access the property. The landlord showed a reasonable level of concern to the resident’s situation by assuring the resident that it was making the necessary arrangements to assist her going forward with regards to the support she required. As explained by the landlord, as it is not the care provider, it was required to have meetings with the resident’s support worker to see how it could assist the resident more with respect to support arrangements.

The first response detailed that the landlord was planning to discuss the resident’s care need with her social worker on 30 September 2020. I can see that this meeting took place. Following this meeting as per the landlord’s second response, amendments were made to the resident’s support plan to provide an increased level of care.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord refusing her father access into her property during the covid pandemic.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s concern about the landlord’s failure to act accordingly in line with the Equality Act 2010 is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlords handling of the complaint.