Notting Hill Genesis (202203445)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203445

Notting Hill Genesis

2 November 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 implementation of contact restrictions on the resident.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. On 9 September 2021 the landlord sent the resident an “unacceptable customer behaviour notification” and explained that it was restricting his contact with it. It said that this was “due to the number of complaints… [he was] raising and [his] unreasonable approach in doing this.” It said that having reviewed its communications with him, it found them to be unreasonable in terms of demands and persistence. The landlord advised the resident that he would have a single point of contact going forward, who he could contact via email, and who would provide responses to new issues once a week. It also outlined that any subsequent home visits or inspections undertaken at the resident’s address would be done jointly. It said the agreement would be reviewed in six months, and advised the resident how he could appeal the decision. It told the resident to report any emergencies in the usual manner for doing so.
4. The resident responded to the landlord the same day, and informed it that he wished to appeal its decision. He believed the decision was made due to him complaining about issues with discrimination and victimisation. He asked the landlord if he could make his appeal verbally via a video conference platform. He asked for this as a reasonable adjustment in light of his disabilities, as he said “it will be much easier and less stressful for me to engage this way”.
5. The following month the resident asked if he could attend the appeal with a representative, to which the landlord agreed. Various discussions took place between the landlord and resident following this, in attempts to arrange a meeting, though it appears the meeting did not go ahead.
6. The resident submitted his grounds for appeal in writing on 18 February 2022. He believed that:
   1. The landlord’s decision to impose the contact agreement was unfair and based on inaccurate information.
   2. The landlord’s decision to impose the agreement was disproportionate and retaliatory.
   3. The landlord failed to provide adequate information to allow him to properly appeal the agreement. In doing so, he believed the landlord acted unreasonably and placed him at significant disadvantage.
   4. The terms of the agreement were unfair and the landlord had not followed them.
   5. The landlord has blocked his attempts to appeal the agreement and ignored reasonable communication from him.
   6. The landlord failed to make a reasonable adjustment, and failed to comply with both its reasonable adjustment policy, and its diversity and equality policy.
   7. The landlord bullied, victimised and discriminated against him.
7. The landlord has said that it wrote to the resident and advised him that the contact agreement ended on 21 March 2022. This correspondence has not been seen in the evidence.
8. The landlord issued its appeal response on 4 April 2022. It apologised “if at times [it] did not follow the terms of the agreement.” It said that it did not believe that the conditions of the agreement placed the resident at a disadvantage, and that it believed a weekly response was a reasonable timeframe. It said that it was unable to substantiate the resident’s allegation of discrimination, and told him that the contact agreement was put in place in line with its policies and procedures. It explained that its reasonable adjustment policy does account for residents’ circumstances; but that due to the number of emails it had received from the resident, it did not believe by communicating with him in this way placed him at a disadvantage. It said it would not address the resident’s concern that it had made it difficult for him to appeal the agreement as it said it had addressed this aspect in a separate complaint.
9. Following discussion with this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that its appeal response was its final position on the matter. It said that its unacceptable behaviour policy (UBP) only provides one appeal route.  It also said that its complaint policy excludes it from considering complaints which are being pursued in an unreasonable manner in line with its UBP.
10. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and believes that the landlord’s decision was inaccurate and unfair. To resolve the complaint, he wanted the landlord to pay compensation for hurt, distress, discrimination and victimisation, and to issue a written apology. The resident also described ways in which he wished the landlord to amend its policies and practices, with particular regard to making reasonable adjustments for tenants with disabilities, in consideration of how the terms of such agreements may impact vulnerable residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. As part of this complaint, the resident has raised concerns with the landlord’s failure to provide information to appeal his decision, and thus believed the landlord made his attempts to appeal the decision difficult. He has also raised concerns with the landlord’s provision of reasonable adjustments and with the landlord’s handling of the contact agreement as he believes it did not follow its terms. However, during the time the agreement was in place the resident raised a separate complaint concerning the above aspects in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s appeal. Therefore, the above aspects will not be considered in this investigation. This investigation will solely focus on the landlord’s decision to put the contact agreement in place and whether this was reasonable in the circumstances.
12. The resident has accused the landlord of being discriminatory in its decision-making process. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal concept which is for a court to determine. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures, and consideration has been given to this in the investigation.

Policies

13. The landlord has a “preventing and managing unacceptable behaviour policy”. It defines unacceptable behaviour as that which “has a significant negative effect on [its] ability to provide services to customers”. Examples it includes are a resident’s persistent refusal to accept the outcome of a reasonable decision, not using the appropriate route for review, persistently making unfounded complaints, and persistently approaching the landlord about the same issue without giving time for a response. It sets out that in dealing with unreasonable behaviour, actions may include (but are not limited to) ending in-progress contact, verbal or written warnings, contact agreements, injunctions or eviction.
14. The landlord has a “preventing and managing unacceptable behaviour procedure”, which details how its staff should respond to such behaviours. It states that contact agreements are most likely to be successful where they are voluntarily agreed to by residents. It also states that wherever possible, residents should be advised in the first instance (via verbal reminder) that it considers their behaviour to be unacceptable, as that gives residents the opportunity to recognise and rectify their behaviour. In instances where a resident may refuse to stop the unacceptable behaviour, it states contact should be followed up by a verbal or written warning from a manager.

The landlord’s decision to restrict contact with the resident

15. The landlord clearly explained that its decision to limit contact with the resident was due to “the level of communication and volume of complaints [he] generated…  placing an unreasonable demand on [its] resources”. The Ombudsman understands that social landlords have limited resources, and that excessive communications or resource-intensive requests for information can impact upon the effectiveness of its service delivery to all of its tenants.
16. However, in this case, the landlord’s communication regarding its decision was not as clear as it should have been, and did not demonstrate that it followed best practice or its own procedure when imposing the restrictions. In line with its policies, the landlord would be expected to provide verbal or written warnings to the resident prior to taking any formal action in relation to the amount and nature of contact received. As stated in its procedures “this gives the [resident] the opportunity to recognise and rectify their behaviour.” The evidence does not show that the landlord explained to the resident how it viewed his contact as unreasonable, prior to putting the contact agreement in place in September 2021, and therefore did not give the resident time to modify his behaviour before taking more formal action.
17. It would also have been good practice for the landlord to have attempted to come to some form of voluntary agreement, before the contact agreement was imposed. As highlighted in the landlord’s procedure, “contact agreements are most likely to be successful where they are voluntarily agreed to by the customer”. By doing so, it would have meant the landlord would have the opportunity to explain that a contact agreement does not restrict the resident from accessing its services, but that the conditions of such agreements, such as a single point of contact, can be a beneficial way to ensure there is a more consistent and coordinated approach in terms of communication between both parties.
18. A landlord would also need to explain its decision with clear and specific examples provided to the resident. In this case, it would have been good practice if the landlord included specific dates of the incidents it referenced in its decision letter, as this may have clarified the breadth and frequency of the contact and therefore made its decision to restrict contact clearer.
19. The landlord has provided its communications with the resident regarding a number of his complaints which were active prior to, and leading up to, the restrictions. It is noteworthy that the landlord acknowledged service failure in a number of the complaints, and acknowledged on more than one occasion that at times its communication with the resident was poor, and not all stage one responses addressed all the points he had raised. The landlord’s explanation that the contact agreement was primarily implemented due to the number of complaints the resident was raising, and his unreasonable approach in doing so, was therefore not reasonable, because its complaint responses showed he had grounds for raising at least some of those complaints.
20. The landlord’s explanation that the resident persistently refused for complaints to be handled in line with policy is not borne out by the evidence seen in this investigation. The evidence received shows the resident expressed dissatisfaction with a reviewer allocated to a particular complaint, and asked the landlord for another to be allocated, and the landlord met this request. At other times the evidence shows the resident asked for independent reviewers to review his complaints, which is an option afforded to residents in the landlord’s complaints policy, and therefore not an unreasonable thing to ask.
21. The landlord wrote to the resident following its appeal response, to say that it would not progress the complaint to stage two, in line with its policy where complaints are being pursued in an unreasonable manner. Only referencing this part of its policy, and not sufficiently or clearly explaining the reason for refusing to progress the resident’s complaint was also unreasonable.
22. Overall, the evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord regarding numerous complaints, and made regular requests for high volumes of information. While the evidence does not show that the conditions of the contract impeded the resident’s ability to access services or raise concerns in a meaningful way, the landlord’s decision to forgo informal actions before putting the contract agreement in place was not in line with good practice or its policies, and amounted to a failing.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

24. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £175 compensation.
25. Within six weeks, the landlord must also create an action plan to ensure it adheres to its own policies and good practices in relation to handling unreasonable behaviour, and explain how it intends to use the complaint to improve its services going forward.
26. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to this Service within the specified timeframes.