Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202106485)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106485

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

15 March 2022

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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a support worker.

Background and summary of events

2. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure.  At Stage 1, the landlord should send the complaint response within 10 working days.  At Stage 2 the landlord should send the complaint response within 20 working days.
3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her property is a flat. The landlord does not provide support services.
4. It is understood that in January 2021, the resident’s GP sent a letter to the landlord to support her transfer application.
5. The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that on 12 May 2021 it discussed incidents at the resident’s scheme that underlay her transfer request and agreed with her to “make referrals to where ever is necessary for support with mental health”. Consequently, on 13 May 2021 the member of staff phoned the resident’s GP surgery after the resident agreed to this, that day. As it did not receive a call back the landlord phoned the surgery again on 19 May 2021 and was advised that the resident’s GP was on leave.  Although the landlord did not get a call back from another GP, the resident came into the office to phone the surgery with her phone on loudspeaker.  The landlord tried to speak to the GP who answered the call but according to its records, it could not do so without the resident interrupting and talking over the member of staff.
6. The resident contacted this Service advising that she felt she had been promised a support worker following receipt of her GP letter, but no progress had been made. On 17 June 2021 this Service asked the landlord to consider the resident’s complaint about its handling of her request for a support worker.
7. The member of staff spoke to and wrote to the resident on 21 June 2021 regarding her complaint. The member of staff confirmed that she could not provide the resident with a social worker; the GP needed to make a referral to the Mental Health Team requesting a Mental Health Assessment if he thought she required this. The assessment would confirm the need for the resident to have a support worker or not.
8. The member of staff also advised the resident that she had spoken to the surgery that day, and was informed that the resident would need to provide written permission for her to speak to the surgery.
9. Also, on 21 June 2021, the landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response explaining that the staff member had suggested that she should get a support worker but had made no commitment to obtain one as the GP would need to carry out a medical assessment first. It noted that the member of staff had contacted the GP surgery when the resident was present, but the regular GP was not available, and consequently the landlord did not obtain the information it required as the resident was also asking for information at the same time.
10. The landlord noted that the member of staff had contacted the GP on the resident’s behalf but was informed that the resident needed to provide written consent in order for information to be shared, and that it had informed the resident of this.  The landlord did not uphold the complaint as there was no evidence that it had promised the resident a support worker and it had taken suitable steps to start the process. It advised the resident to contact her GP to give it permission to act on her behalf so that the GP could share information that would enable a medical assessment to be completed.
11. The landlord’s notes indicate that the GP surgery informed the member of staff on 24 June 2021 that the resident had provided a letter on 22 June 2021 giving permission for the GP to speak to the landlord, but then the resident had taken the letter back and therefore withdrew permission. The member of staff wrote to the resident on 24 June 2021 advising that it had been unable to provide the follow up support she requested as permission was withdrawn at the GP surgery.
12. As the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, she requested escalation of her complaint on the basis that she was unhappy with how the situation had been managed. In addition she said she had previously provided medical information but had since retracted authority as she no longer felt comfortable interacting with the staff member.
13. On 13 July 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint. It noted that in May 2021 the resident gave permission for it to contact her GP but during the initial telephone conversation, it was unable to fully converse with the GP as the resident was present and requesting different information.  It attempted to speak to the GP on a one-to-one basis and was informed that the resident needed to provide written consent. The landlord noted that the resident initially provided written consent but later withdrew the authority.
14. The landlord stated it could not assist the resident with obtaining a support worker without the GP taking necessary action and concluded that there was no service failure.  It advised that it had received correspondence from the GP which it had shared with its Available Homes team, and the resident would need to ask her GP to make a referral to the Mental Health Team for an assessment to ascertain her eligibility for a support worker.

Assessment and findings

15. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not require the landlord to provide support services and therefore it was not obliged to provide the resident with a support worker itself.  The landlord did, however, agree to assist the resident with making a referral to obtain support from another body.
16. As confirmed in its responses to the resident, the landlord sought to assist the resident with obtaining support through her GP referring her to the Mental Health team for a Mental Health Assessment. This would ascertain if she was eligible for a Mental Health Support Worker.  It was therefore reasonable that the landlord sought to speak to the GP as by doing so it could request on the resident’s behalf that the GP make the referral.
17. It is not disputed that the landlord did not have the necessary conversation with the GP in order to make the request for a Mental Health Assessment when speaking to the surgery on 13 May 2021.  The landlord took further steps to ensure that the GP made the request by asking for a call back and phoning back. The GP’s surgery now stated that it required the resident to provide written permission from the resident so that it could discuss her circumstances with the landlord.  The landlord advised the resident of this requirement which was appropriate as by doing so it make clear what further action was required for it to be able to assist her with obtaining a social worker.
18. The landlord also in its response explained that ultimately it would be for the GP to decide whether to make a referral to the Mental Health Team and for the Mental Health Team in turn to decide whether to assign a support worker to the resident. It thereby not only took appropriate steps to manage the resident’s expectations about the whole process of obtaining a support worker and also her expectations about what authority it had within the process.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Reasons

20. Having agreed to assist the resident with receiving additional support, it was reasonable that the landlord sought to speak to her  GP as by doing so it could request on the resident’s behalf that the GP make a referral to the Mental Health Team. Subsequently, the landlord advised the resident that the GP surgery required her to provide written permission for it to act on her behalf.  This was appropriate as by doing so it make clear what further action was required for it to be able to assist her with obtaining a social worker.
21. The landlord also took appropriate steps to manage the resident’s expectations about the whole process of obtaining a support worker and her expectations about what authority it had within the process.