Leeds City Council (202303188)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303188

Leeds City Council

11 July 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:
1. Decision to no longer communicate with the resident’s chosen representative.
2. Decision to carry out visits to the property in pairs.
3. Level of customer service received from a landlord staff member.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority who works in partnership with a tenant management organisation who manages the resident’s property and tenancy.
For the purpose of this report the term landlord will be used for the tenant management organisation.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its system. The landlord is aware the resident and her representative have mental health vulnerabilities.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to let her know that the landlord would no longer deal with her representative due to a number of comments made to staff and the offensive nature of them. It also sent an internal email to a number of staff to let them know.
A month later the resident called the landlord to complain that 2 contractors had turned up to fit a shower curtain. She told the landlord she did not want them both in the property as she could not cope with it due to mental health issues. The landlord explained there was a marker on the account that said it was to visit the property in pairs due to previous incidents. The resident and her representative were upset, and the landlord terminated the calls as it felt they were being threatening and demanding. The same day the resident and her representative visited the landlord’s offices. The landlord did not let them in as the representative was not allowed in the office. The landlord completed a “report of aggression or violence” form.
On 9 May 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She complained that the landlord was making it difficult for her to get any work done in the property. This was because of the visit in pairs marker and the landlord’s refusal to speak with her representative. She said the landlord had put the marker on her property due to violent and abusive behaviour towards contractors which had never happened. She complained about how some of the landlord’s staff were dealing with her and that she felt it was a personal vendetta against her. The resident explained her health and mental health was suffering because of this treatment. She said she could not allow 2 operatives in her house because of her mental health but the landlord did not change the visit in pairs marker.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it explained that the visit in pairs was not a new marker and had been in place since 10 October 2014. It explained it was added because of aggressive behaviour, not violence or abuse. The landlord offered to ask the operatives to wear protective overalls and masks if this helped with the resident’s cleaning concerns. It explained the instructions not to communicate with a chosen representative and to visit in pairs could be instigated when behaviour is experienced that makes contractors and staff feel unsafe. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord held a panel meeting on 15 June 2023 and replied in full on 23 June 2023. It agreed that in 12 months’ time it would review the decision not to communicate with her representative. It gave examples of alternative people the resident could have as her representative. The landlord found no evidence of a personal vendetta against the resident and concluded staff were doing their jobs. It concluded that while it was important to protect staff by having the visit in pairs marker, it also understood why this arrangement was difficult for the resident. The landlord agreed to discuss it with its staff and the contractors and update the resident shortly.

Post internal complaints procedure

The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it has since come to an agreement with the resident around the visit in pairs situation. The resident has agreed that her representative will leave the property for work to be completed. The contractor has agreed that 1 operative will enter the property and carry out the work and the other will wait outside to be available for assistance if required.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her communication with the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has described the impact that the events set out in this report had on her physical and mental health. The resident’s concerns about this are noted and are not disputed. However, the Ombudsman is unable to establish legal liability or determine whether a landlord’s actions or inaction have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. It is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman does however consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any identified failings in the service provided by the landlord.

Decision to no longer communicate with the resident’s chosen representative

The resident’s chosen representative was not a household member or a named tenant at the property. Paragraphs 8.6 and 8.7 of the resident’s tenancy agreement set out the conditions around anti-social behaviour (ASB) from visitors to the property. The conditions include:
1. That any household member or visitor must not carry out any ASB which is conduct causing or likely to cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm or distress to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in the locality of your home. The list included landlord employees and contractors.
2. The examples of ASB included using abusive or insulting words and using technology to harass, alarm or distress.
In response to the Ombudsman’s evidence request to the landlord as part of this investigation, the landlord provided a “please respect our staff” document. It outlined actions the landlord could take if staff experienced unacceptable behaviour from residents. The leaflet says that if incidents of aggression happen, they would be logged on file. The action taken would be determined by the background and events leading to the incident, seriousness of the behaviour, impact on the individual and the number of incidents associated with the person. The landlord would write to the resident to make them aware of the behaviour it was concerned about and tell the resident what would happen next. The list of possible actions included visiting in pairs, and restricting contact with staff and services.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it would not communicate with her representative anymore due to offensive comments made to staff. The landlord followed its procedure by writing to the resident to let her know the action it was taking and why. The landlord acted appropriately.
However, the landlord’s communication did not detail the incidents that had led to this decision. Although it mentioned offensive comments, it did not set out the details of and circumstances surrounding the comments. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident may not have known about the incidents or fully understand why the landlord was making this decision. The landlord was not customer focused or transparent.
There was no evidence provided to the Ombudsman that showed the incidents that specifically caused the landlord’s decision had been logged on the landlord’s systems. A landlord’s knowledge and information management is key to providing good services and making fair, professional decisions about any resident restrictions. The landlord acted unreasonably by not ensuring the incidents were correctly logged.
The landlord’s communication did not offer the resident an opportunity to appeal the decision. While it was not within the landlord’s procedure to offer this, nor was the representative a household member, it would have been reasonable to give the resident an opportunity to appeal the decision. A representative can be a crucial lifeline for somebody to access services. The landlord should have given the resident a chance to discuss the situation. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not solution driven or empathetic to the resident’s situation.
The landlord’s communication did not let the resident know if the decision would be reviewed after a certain timeframe. Again, although not in the landlord’s procedure, it would have been reasonable to offer a reviewing period. This may have managed the resident’s expectations, and she may have been able to put an alternative arrangement in place for that time.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response agreed to review the decision in 12 months’ time. This was a customer focused decision from the landlord that showed it had considered its earlier approach and made a reasonable change. The landlord acted reasonably, although it should have come to this decision earlier in the process. Its delay in making this decision left the resident with a longer period of time without a representative.
The landlord let the resident know it was happy to communicate with a different representative and gave examples of 2 family members it had met previously. The landlord was trying to help the resident, to enable her to access its services. The landlord acted reasonably in suggesting alternatives.
In summary there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s decision to no longer communicate with the resident’s chosen representative. While it was able to make such a decision due to the actions of the representative, it did not communication effectively with the resident or offer reasonable actions on its part when putting in place the restriction. The landlord’s procedure does not represent fairness for its residents. Its stage 2 complaint response was fairer and more empathetic. An order of compensation has been made below to reflect the distress and inconvenience incurred, as well as an order to review and improve the landlord’s procedure.

Decision to carry out visits to the property in pairs

On 25 April 2023 the resident raised her issue with contractors attending the property in pairs. The resident felt like a specific staff member of the landlord had put it in place and had a personal vendetta against her. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response explained that the visit in pairs marker had been in place since 10 October 2014 due to verbal abuse against the landlord or contractors at the time. It explained this was prior to the time the specific staff member had joined. The landlord acted reasonably. It was transparent as to when the marker was added and tried to reassure the resident that none of its staff had a personal vendetta against her.
However, the landlord provided the Ombudsman with no evidence to show that it had logged the original or new incidents against the marker or regularly reviewed it. There was no evidence the resident had been given an opportunity to appeal the decision over the years. It was not clear if the resident was aware she had this marker on her tenancy since 2014. The landlord should have given the resident a chance to appeal the decision and provided clarity on when the marker would be reviewed. The landlord acted unreasonably. The landlord knew the visit in pairs marker was difficult for the resident because of her mental health. It was unreasonable that the resident’s ability to access services to suit her vulnerabilities was restricted, based on a 10-year-old marker that had not been reviewed.
On 23 June 2023 the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that the visit in pairs marker was difficult for the resident and affected her well-being. It explained why it had the marker but agreed to talk to the staff and contractors and update her shortly after the response. This was a fair and empathetic response from the landlord. It was open to trying to help the resident. The landlord acted reasonably.
The process subsequently agreed with the resident is that she will ensure her representative is not there when contractors are due. One operative will enter the property to carry out the required work and the other will wait outside and assist if required for safety reasons. This is a reasonable compromise that both parties have agreed to.
In summary there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s decision to carry out visits to the property in pairs. It may have been appropriate to have a visit in pairs marker on the account, but the landlord did not review the marker for 10 years or provide the resident with an opportunity to appeal it. Its openness to adapt its decision in its stage 2 response was welcome but did not put right the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Orders and recommendations are made below in recognition of this finding.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In January 2024 we published our Spotlight on “Relationship of equals”. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed.

Level of customer service received from a landlord staff member

As set out above in the assessment of the landlord’s decision to carry out visits to the property in pairs the resident raised concerns about a member of the landlord’s staff having a personal vendetta against her and as a consequence the level of service she received.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response detailed the landlord’s findings of the staff conduct complaint. It outlined the instances the landlord had communicated with the resident and the reason for the landlord’s actions. This showed that it had investigated the complaint and made a finding based on the evidence it found. The landlord said it had spoken to all the staff members concerned. The landlord acted reasonably and provided detail to its response to show it had taken the complaint seriously.
In the resident’s escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process one of her main escalation points was that a member of the landlord’s staff was deliberately preventing her from receiving a proper service and had a personal vendetta against her.
The landlord found no evidence that any member of staff had a personal vendetta against the resident. It acknowledged that there had been disagreements about the service it would provide. It acknowledged it had declined some of the enhancements the resident had requested, as they were above and beyond the void standard. However, the landlord found through its investigation that it felt it had worked hard to accommodate the resident and wanted to support her on the basis of her mental health issues. The landlord acted reasonably. It tried to explain the basis for its conclusion and provided a detailed response. It was customer focused.
In investigating this aspect of the resident’s complaint, the landlord evidenced it had looked through the resident and landlord communications as it uncovered an unrelated error that it had not noticed previously. The landlord put this right, demonstrating a transparent and resolution focused approach.
In summary there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint about a staff member’s customer service. It demonstrated it had thoroughly investigated the complaint by speaking to staff and looking through all the evidence it had on file and on its systems. It shared the outcome with the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s decision to no longer communicate with the resident’s chosen representative.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s decision to carry out visits to the property in pairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a complaint about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 made up of:
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in its decision to no longer communicate with the resident’s representative.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in its decision to carry out visits to the property in pairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure:
1. The wider public interest is addressed by identifying any restriction markers on resident’s accounts. The landlord is required to audit all markers and ensure they are evidenced, current, fair and that the resident is aware of the marker. It should provide residents with a review date in writing and explain how the marker will be reviewed.
2. The landlord has considered the introduction of an appeals process and review process to resident or representative restrictions within its existing guidance.
3. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord to consider speaking to the resident about her vulnerabilities and discussing whether it is appropriate to log them on the landlord’s system.