Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Tandridge District Council (202117404)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117404

Tandridge District Council

31 January 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns raised about the attitude and approach of the resident’s former housing officer and the resident’s request for that officer to be changed.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a Council. The resident is a joint tenant with her sister and the tenancy commenced on 23 May 2016. The property is a two bedroom flat.
  2. The resident has complex physical and mental health disabilities which include long term pain management, poor mobility, mixed personality disorder and depression. The resident and her sister come from the traveller community and have reported difficulties with literacy, processing information and with communication.
  3. In October 2016, the resident’s social worker wrote to the landlord to explain that that the resident was unable to sleep due to the amount of noise being made by her neighbour and that this was impacting her mental health, with reference specifically to depression. In an incident diary completed in April/May 2019 the resident’s sister advised the landlord that the resident had ‘‘tried to take an overdose again’’.
  4. Between 2016 and 5 October 2020, the resident made multiple reports to the landlord regarding noise nuisance from her neighbour, including stomping and banging, music blaring and the sound of items being dropped. The resident also reported concerns about rubbish in the neighbour’s garden. In response the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour, met with the local police, offered mediation and referred the resident to an organisation which provided coaching to support individuals tackle difficult situations, and improve their general well-being.  At some point prior to the appointment of the new housing officer, the landlord also referred the resident’s case to a multi-agency forum, Community Harm and Risk Management Meetings (CHARMM).

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable time of the matter complained about occurring, normally within six months. These historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint. This assessment focuses on events following the appointment of the housing officer, who was the subject of the complaint, in late 2019/early 2020 and them leaving the landlord’s employment on 5 March 2021. The formal complaint about the attitude and approach of that housing officer was logged by the landlord on 27 May 2021.
  2. The resident’s request to move has been referenced in this report. The resident’s concerns about the Council’s assessment of her transfer application and its decision to award priority band C, has not been assessed as this falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO) to investigate. 
  3. This Service also acknowledges that the resident has concerns about the impact of her neighbour’s behaviour, and that of her housing officer, had on her mental health, and that she has been discriminated against by the landlord. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health as assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that the this Service is unable to provide.
  4. The Ombudsman can also not determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, this report has considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns. The resident may wish to seek independent advice with regard to any legal recourse she may have with regards to these matters.

Summary of events

  1. In late 2019/early 2020, a new housing officer, who is the subject of the resident’s complaint, was assigned to the resident’s case.  
  2. On 29 June 2020, the resident completed an ‘authorisation to act ‘ for her Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) from a regional mental health advocacy service, to act on her behalf with regards to housing issues with the landlord.
  3. In July 2020, there was communication between the housing officer, the resident and the IMHA regarding the neighbour’s CCTV and the neighbour’s making abusive comments to the resident. There is also evidence of counter-allegations of noise nuisance made about the resident, her sister and visitors. The landlord’s records note that the CHARMM meeting gave the landlord instruction to refer both parties to mediation and to seek legal advice as to what action could be taken to address the resident’s and her sisters behaviour. The landlord noted that it had been advised that the case did not meet the threshold for action at that time and that it hoped the mediation service, with help from the resident’s advocate, would allow the resident to address her behaviour.
  4. On 5 August 2020, the IMHA emailed the housing officer to advise that the resident’s mental health was very unstable and she had taken an overdose. The IMHA said that the resident had an appointment with a consultant psychiatrist the following week. The IMHA also said that a date had been booked with the mediation service, but an assessment would need to be made as to whether it would be in the resident’s best interest to start the process at that time when she was in such a vulnerable condition.
  5. The housing officer responded the same day to say that they were sorry to hear about the resident, confirmed that there was a CHARMM meeting the following week and that they had emailed the chair of that meeting an update and had asked that they invite the IMHA to the meeting.
  6. The housing officer then went on to ask if it the resident’s overdose was accidental, as they had spoken to the resident’s sister that morning who had not said anything. They also referred to the resident and her sister reporting issues not only about their direct neighbours, but throughout the estate and that they had been ‘‘inundated’’ with concerns about the resident and her sister’s behaviour. The housing officer said that the sister was unrealistic in what the landlord could and will do, and that they felt the resident and her sister might be better suited in supported accommodation, where they would receive the care and support they clearly needed.
  7. In an internal landlord email of 10 August 2020, the housing officer noted that the IMHA had contacted them to advise that the resident was in crisis and they, the IMHA, were concerned. The housing officer noted that the IMHA was ‘‘very unrealistic’’ in asking them not to call the resident or her sister, as the sisters called them and demand that they call them back. The housing officer also noted that the IMHA had asked to meet with them, but they had advised that CHARMM needed to meet first on 8 September 2020.
  8. On 8 September 2020, the landlord’s Resident Support Specialist (RSS) sent an internal email to what appears to be the housing officer (the name of the person to who the email is addressed has been redacted). The RSS said that at the CHARRM meeting that morning concerns were raised that both sisters had spoken of suicidal ideation. The RSS said that this was not considered an immediate danger but asked that the sisters be spoken to and referred for relevant support.
  9. On 18 September 2020, the housing officer wrote to the resident and her sister thanking them for attending a meeting on 16 September 2020. The housing officer agreed to advise the IMHA of any reports of ASB by the resident and that the IMHA would also report the resident’s concerns to them, which they would then address with the neighbours. The housing officer noted that the resident no longer wanted any further mediation support, said that the rubbish in the resident’s front garden had been discuss and asked that the resident remove this within the next 14 days, and that the resident had been asked to be more considerate to her neighbours by not burning rubbish in her back garden.
  10. The housing officer also emailed the IMHA, thanking them for attending the meeting the previous day. The housing officer said that, as agreed, they would write to the resident if they received any further complaints and email the IMHA so that they could discuss in greater detail with the resident. The IMHA could then respond with an explanation or resolution.
  11. On 5 October 2020, the resident’s IMHA wrote to the resident’s housing officer to thank them for the additional time given to the resident for rubbish to be removed from her front garden and to advise that the resident had downloaded the Noise App, but was having difficulties using it. The IMHA said that they had expressed the importance of using the App and had asked the resident to keep trying, and to seek help from her family.
  12. On 15 October 2020, the housing officer emailed the IMHA to confirm that the resident had managed to use the Noise App and had submitted a recording. The housing officer went on to explain that there was a slight muffled noise but nothing significant and it had only lasted a few seconds. The IMHA was asked to encourage the resident to continue to use the App and the housing officer offered the IMHA and the resident to listen to the recording that it had been sent. The housing officer confirmed that the case had been discussed at a CHARMM meeting the previous week and they had been asked to check that the neighbour’s CCTV was in the correct place. The housing officer went on to explain that they had:
  1. Made an unannounced visit to the neighbour’s property, with the police, and were satisfied with what the neighbour’s CCTV was capturing.
  2. In the interest of fairness, they had also visited the resident’s property, again with the police. Whilst the resident had advised that her cameras were dummies, they and the police had asked that she move the position of her cameras as they were directly overlooking the neighbour’s private garden. The housing officer went on to say that they felt the direction of the resident’s cameras provided evidence, that she was trying to provoke her neighbours.
  1. On 3 November 2020, the housing officer emailed the resident’s IMHA to advise that a CHARMM meeting had taken place that day and it had been decided that the resident’s case would be removed from the CHARMM agenda. The email provided no details of why the decision had been made. The housing officer said that they appreciated there were outstanding concerns and requested a meeting so that these could be addressed. The landlord asked for the IMHA’s availability.
  2. On 23 November 2020, the landlord received a letter from a consultant psychiatrist, advising that the resident had reported that the ongoing difficulties with her neighbours was directly impacting her mental health condition and significantly contributing to the risk to herself. On this basis the consultant psychiatrist said that they would be grateful if the landlord could expedite a move for the family.
  3. The following day, 24 November 2020, the housing officer emailed the IMHA to advise that:
  1. They were still receiving concerns about the position of the resident’s CCTV and asked that, as the resident’s advocate, the IMHA advise her that they would be speaking to or visiting her, with the police to address this.
  2. They appreciate the resident’s mental health concerns. However, residents have to comply with their tenancy conditions and that the landlord needs to be able to address concerns as they arise. The resident could not refuse to engage with them and that the issue of the resident’s CCTV was having a negative impact on seeking a resolution in this case. The housing officer recognised that the IMHA could continue to offer support
  3. With regards to the resident’s concerns about noise by her neighbour, they were not prepared to visit the neighbour as they had not received any evidence of noise nuisance. If, however, the resident were to provide new supporting evidence via the Noise App, they would investigate further.
  1. On 30 November 2020, the resident’s IMHA emailed the landlord to say that as a result of the housing officer’s email of 24 November 2020, the resident would like a change in her case worker as the relationship between them had broken down. The IMHA said that the resident felt the housing officer picked on them and had a one sided view. The IMHA went on to explain that the resident had not refused to engage with the landlord, but felt that any contact with the housing officer was likely to have a significant impact on their mental health. The IMHA confirmed that they would continue to support the resident as their independent advocate.
  2. On 4 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the IMHA to advise that a different case officer would not be assigned. The reasons the landlord gave for this was that:
  1. Having reviewed the case files, it could find no evidence that the case had been mishandled nor that the housing officer had at any time not been impartial.
  2. That it expects to be able to liaise and communicate directly with its resident’s and it was not tenable that as a landlord it could have no direct contact with its resident’s.
  3. The officer in question had built up an understanding of the difficulties surrounding the neighbour dispute and was working with both parties to deal with issues as they arose.
  4. It had previously changed officers, but regrettably was unable to agree to this request.
  5. A way forward would be that if the housing officer needed to contact the resident that they contact the resident’s sisters for a general conversation, which they could then communicate to the resident. If the sisters then wished to discuss the matter with the IMHA they could contact them. If there were the need for more complex communication the landlord said that it could include the IMHA in its communication with the resident.
  1. On 7 December 2020 and 17 December 2020, the resident’s IMHA raised further concerns about there being a complete breakdown in the relationship between the resident and her housing officer, together with a complete failure to understand and acknowledge the resident’s mental health issues. The IMHA said that since the housing officer’s visit the previous week, with the police, to again check the position of the dummy cameras at the resident’s property, both the resident and her sister had made a suicide pact. The IMHA said that the level of concern was such that a third sister had temporarily moved in with the resident. The IMHA asked that any communication to the resident was via them, the IMHA, until a new housing officer was allocated and work progressed to develop some level of trust. 
  2. The landlord responded to the IMHA’s request on 22 December 2020. The landlord said that it had reviewed the case and confirmed that the housing officer in question would continue to oversee the case and work to resolve the issues for all parties concerned. The landlord said that the case had been ongoing since 2016, with a number of different officers from both the landlord and police being involved. Whilst it appreciated that this would be disappointing to the resident, it was not practical to assign the case to a different housing officer every time the resident or her sister were given information they were not happy with. It acknowledged that this was not an easy case to manage and had recently been discussed at a multi-agency meeting that both itself and the police attended. A number of allegations had been made by both parties and mediation offered. It and the police would continue to liaise and make joint approaches in managing this case due to the serious nature of the unfounded allegations made by the resident in the past. The landlord went on to say that it had concerns about the way the IMHA had supported the resident and that it had been made aware of meetings where it had been reported that the IMHA had been confrontational, dismissive and contributed to difficulties in communication with the resident.
  3. On 16 February 2021, the resident’s IMHA wrote to the landlord in response to its letter of 22 December 2020. The IMHA said that they had attended a meeting with the resident and the housing officer, and found the housing officer to be aggressive in their matter towards the resident, her sister and themselves. The IMHA said that she asked politely if the housing officer would be mindful of her approach as it was intimidating. The IMHA went on to say that as an advocate with many years’ experience, they had never been spoken to in that manner by another professional and that the landlord’s response that the resident wanted to change their housing officer because they had given them bad news, was quite patronising and disrespectful to both the resident and her sister.
  4. On 15 March 2021, the landlord emailed the IMHA to advise that the resident’s housing officer left its employment on 5 March 2021 and that it was currently advertising for a replacement. The landlord went on to say that in the meantime its case services team leader or another officer in the team would deal with any issues if they arose.

Actions of the landlord following the housing officer leaving its employment.

  1. The landlord’s Case Services Team leader met with the resident, the resident’s IMHA and the landlord’s Specialist Services Manager on 18 May 2021. During the meeting a number of issues were discussed together with the impact on the resident, her sister, and in particular their mental health. The IMHA said that the previous housing officer had been heavy handed in her dealing with the resident and used the example of the housing officer visiting the sisters four or five times with a police officer in attendance, which they found confrontational. The IMHA explained that the resident had difficulties in processing information and struggled to understand or read letters. The landlord agreed that officers would phone the resident before any written communication was sent. The resident’s suicidal thoughts, and that her and her sister had made a suicide pact in the past were also discussed. The landlord advised that in light of this it was obliged to make a safeguarding and Adult Social Care referral for the resident so that she could get the support she needed.
  2. On 21 May 2021, the case services team leader referred the resident to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) and Adult Social Care (Mental Health Team). On 26 May 2021, MASH emailed the case services team leader thanking them for referring the landlord’s concerns and confirming that a decision had been taken that Safeguarding enquiries were not needed. However, as the resident met the criteria 59 of the Care Act, MASH had made a request for an assessment and had assigned the task to the relevant team to follow up. 
  3. On 10 June 2021, the Community Mental Health Recovery Services (CMHRS) wrote to the landlord, following it said the landlord’s referral on 3 June 2021. The CMHRS said that the Multidisciplinary team (MDT) had screened the referral and that the resident’s presentation appeared to be secondary to her housing need. 
  4. On 15 June 2021, the case services team leader received an email advising that the resident’s case had been reviewed by CMHRS who had discharged the case. The CMHRS advised that should the resident’s mental health presentation change, she could be assessed further by her GP. The case services team leader referred the resident to her GP the same day.

The complaint

  1. On 17 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response, referring to a formal complaint registered on the resident’s behalf by their Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) on 27 May 2021. The landlord said that, with regards to the attitude and approach of the resident’s former housing officer, it had been explained to the resident that the officer in question no longer worked for it, which limited the extent to which it could investigate the resident’s concerns. Nevertheless, the housing officer in question was an experienced officer who, to its knowledge, always conducted herself professionally and was well regarded by colleagues and partner agencies. The landlord apologised for any distress that may have been caused by the officer’s approach, however, its review of the files had not given rise to any concerns in relation to the named housing officer’s management of the case. With regards to the resident’s requests for a change of case officer, these were given appropriate consideration, including case reviews by two senior officer, both of whom concluded that there was no reason to change the case officer’s in question. The landlord said that it could find no reason to suggest their conclusions were unreasonable.
  2. The resident’s IMHA contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two on 14 and 28 July 2021. The IMHA reiterated that the resident’s previous housing officer’s attitude and approach towards them was difficult and threatening. They had repeatedly highlighted that the resident and her sister had literacy issues and issues with processing information, however, correspondence was not in an easy read format and no consideration had been given to the resident or her sister’s mental health needs. They were concerned about the landlord’s lack of understanding about their role as an advocate, about mental health problems, literacy issues and the traveller community, and that the sisters were seen as difficult residents, not residents with needs.
  3. The landlord issued its stage two, and final, response on 5 August 2021. The landlord said that it in its stage one response it had explained that it no longer employed the housing officer in question. It had apologised for any distress that her approach may have caused, and also explained that the request to change case officers was considered and declined on two separate occasions by two senior officers. The landlord went on to say that:
  1. It would not be able to agree to the resident’s request for a named housing officer, as the housing team was a small team of three, working together across cases, and in the past there had been difficulties if an officer was off sick or on leave.
  2. Safeguarding training was compulsory across the whole organisations, with specific training for different roles. Equalities and diversity training, including traveller discrimination, would be added to the housing officer team’s training plans.
  3. Officers were aware of the Mental Health Act and Care Act in supporting and referring residents through to advocacy services, and this would be reaffirmed at the next team meeting.
  4. Its housing system did have the capability to put a flag to identify individual needs, but up until that point it had not been used, due to previous concerns around data protection. The landlord said it would review this and develop a policy to support this.

Assessment and findings

  1. In their referral to this service, on 28 October 2021, the resident’s representative said that the landlord had failed in its duty of care to the resident and explained that the resident had suffered serious deterioration in her mental health, including self-harm and suicidal ideation. It was explained that since the resident submitted their complaint, the landlord had apologised for the distressed caused by the approach of the resident’s former housing officer, but there had been no acknowledgement of the landlord’s failure to take action to resolve the problem and to protect the resident.

Relevant legislation, standards and policies.

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. As a local authority, the landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
  2. The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs” with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code 2020 states that landlords should comply with the Equality Act 2010, and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords shall have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to address this. The landlord has not provided a copy of its reasonable adjustments policy and this service has been unable to locate a copy on the landlord’s website.
  4. The landlord has not provided a copy of its Vulnerability Policy, however information regarding this is policy available on the landlord’s website (in relation to the Local Housing Allowance (LHA)). The aims and objectives listed include helping to sustain tenancies for vulnerable residents, to help put tenants in touch with other agencies where necessary and give people the opportunity and support so they can manage their own affairs, to treat each case individually and to avoid making assumptions about people’s situations.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy states that in the course of an investigation, an officer may come across a person whose welfare may raise concerns. In any situation it remains a duty for officers to ensure that these concerns are properly logged and passed to social services in accordance with Safeguarding Policy & Procedures.
  6. The landlord’s Safeguarding Policy includes a number of aims of safeguarding which include: preventing harm and reducing the risk of abuse or neglect, safeguarding individuals in such a way that supports them in making choices and having control over how they want to live, and to promote an approach that concentrates on improving life for the individual. The Policy states that if a safeguarding concern is raised an assessment should be made as to whether there was an immediate risk of harm. If this was the case the emergency services should be called. If this was not the case the officer should make a referral to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH).

Assessment

  1. It is recognised by this Service that this is a complex case, which involves a vulnerable resident with significant mental health needs. There is a long history of ASB and neighbour disputes between the resident and her neighbour dating back to 2016. However, this assessment will focus on events that occurred between late 2019/early 2020 until the housing officer left the landlord’s employment on 5 March 2021.
  2. At the time the housing officer was allocated to the case, the landlord was aware of the resident’s complex mental health needs and that she had been reported as having taken an overdose in 2019. The resident’s case had already been referred to the agenda of the Community Harm and Risk Management Meetings (CHARMM). The resident had also been referred to an organisation which provides coaching to help individuals tackle difficult situations and for mediation. The resident authorised her IMHA to act on her behalf in June 2020.
  3. Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had respond to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with her. Under the Equality Act 2010, and as a local authority, the landlord also had the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, such as how it provided information to the resident and communication through a representative or intermediary.
  4. On 5 August 2020, the IMHA advised the housing officer that the resident’s mental health state was very unstable and that she had made an attempt to end her life. Having been advised of this, and given that there was no indication that there was an immediate risk, the housing officer would have been expected to have considered making a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) referral, in accordance with the landlord’s Safeguarding Policy. However, the housing officer’s response was to ask if the resident’s attempt to end her life had been accidental. The housing officer failed to recognise that their first consideration should have been about how best they might support the resident and instead made reference to being ‘’inundated’’ with concerns about the resident and her sister’s behaviour.
  5. This response shows not only a lack of empathy for the resident, but also a failure to recognise the seriousness of the incident that had been reported and what their responsibilities might be as a under the landlord’s Safeguarding Policy. It was not until 21 May 2021, nine months later, and after the housing officer had left the landlord’s employment, that the case services team leader referred the resident to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), Adult Social Care (Mental Health Team), the Community Mental Health Recovery Services (CMHRS) and her GP.
  6. In an internal email from the housing officer on 10 August 2020, rather than seeking to discuss what steps they might take to support the resident, the housing officer referred to the IMHA as being ‘‘very unrealistic’’ in asking them not to call the resident, stating that the resident and her sister called and demanded call backs. Instead of simply dismissing the IMHA’s request as unrealistic, an appropriate response by the housing officer would have been to discuss the requirements in more details with the IMHA and to have sought to reach agreement as to what would be the most appropriate response to the resident’s needs at that time. It was not for the housing officer to make assumptions about what the resident’s needs were or about what any adjustments would look like.
  7. There is evidence of some good practice by the housing officer in September and early October 2020. In September 2020, the housing officer met with the IMHA where it was agreed that the housing officer would write to the resident it they received any further complaints and would also email the IMHA so that they could discuss in greater details. In October 2020, the IMHA thanked the housing officer for providing the resident with additional time to remove rubbish from her front garden. It is also evident that the resident had been provided with the Noise App that the IMHA was assisting her in using.
  8. However, by mid-October 2020, the housing officer again failed to act reasonably. This time with regard to the instruction by CHARMM to inspect the neighbour’s CCTV. Whilst it was appropriate for the housing officer to carry out a visit to the neighbour’s property to check on the location of their CCTV, there is no evidence that the housing officer had been asked by CHARMM to inspect the resident’s CCTV. The housing officer’s later explanation that they did so ‘in the interest of fairness’ does not provide a reasonable explanation as to why they decided to visit the resident, unannounced and with a police presence, without being asked to do so.
  9. The housing officer was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that the resident had an advocate, IMHA, and so if they had needed to inspect the resident’s CCTV camera, it would have been reasonable to expect the housing officer to contact the IMHA prior to the visit. This would have allowed the IMHA to discuss with the resident that this was going to happen and if necessary for the IMHA to be present during the visit to support her. In addition, the language used by the housing officer in their later email to the IMHA of 15 October 2020, that the position of the resident’s camera was clear evidence that she was ‘trying to provoke her neighbours’, was accusatory, was not solution focused and lacked a respectful tone.
  10. This Service has not seen evidence as to why the housing officer was accompanied by the police when inspecting the resident’s CCTV. However, whether the police presence was appropriate or not would be a matter for the police themselves and therefore would be outside of the remit of this Service to consider.
  11. Despite not doing so in the first instance, in their later email of 24 November 2020, the housing officer did advise the IMHA in advance that they would be speaking to or visiting the resident again, with the police, to address further concerns raised about the position of the resident’s CCTV. However, the information provided by the housing officer as to when such a visit might take place was vague. They failed to acknowledge that the IMHA would need to speak to the resident beforehand to explain what was going to happen, or to be present during the visit in order to support the resident. The housing officer’s failure to consider the vulnerability and needs of the resident in this instance is particularly concerning, given that the previous day the landlord had received a letter from mental health services reporting that the difficulties with her neighbour were directly worsening the resident’s mental health and the risk of harm to herself.
  12. The housing officer’s insistence that the resident could not refuse to engage with them and that they needed to be able to address concerns as they arose was a further example of the housing officer either not understanding, or not applying their duty under the Equality Act. Their response also failed to recognise the discussion and agreement that had been made with the IMHA only two months earlier, with regard to working with the IMHA in respect of their engagement with the resident.
  13. Whilst there were failings by the housing officer with regards to their responsibilities to the resident as a vulnerable person under the Equality Act, and in their approach to visits with regards to the CCTV, in general the housing officer’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise from her neighbours was reasonable. The housing officer had listened to the recordings provided on 10 October 2020, explained what they had heard, a few seconds of a slightly muffled noise, and invited the IMHA and the resident to listen to the records should they wish. As there was no evidence of any further reports or noise apps recordings being submitted to the landlord prior to its email to the IMHA of 24 November 2020, it was also reasonable for the housing officer to advise in that email that they would not be taking further action at that time. However, the housing officer should have been more mindful of how this was explained to the resident as saying that they were ‘‘not prepared’’ to visit the neighbour was quite dismissive in tone.
  14. It was following the housing officer’s email of 24 November 2020, that the IMHA contacted the landlord to request a change of officer. The IMHA explained that contact from the housing officer was exacerbating the resident’s mental health. Face to face or phone contact between the resident and the housing officer was causing mixed messages and misunderstanding, and that any contact with the housing officer was likely to have a significant impact on their mental health. The IMHA also explained the difficulties the resident had in understanding and processing information.
  15. The IMHA’s request was responded to by two senior members of the landlord on 4 and 22 December 2020. In both responses the landlord said that it had found no evidence that the case had been mishandled and insisted that the housing officer would not be changed.
  16. Whilst the landlord’s responses with regards to the general handling of the residents reports were reasonable, there was no evidence that either senior officer considered whether the housing officer had acted in accordance with the landlord’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 or the RSH Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard or its own Safeguarding Policy. The landlord failed to recognised the missed opportunity to refer the resident to MASH in August 2020 and its convoluted proposal of 4 December 2020, with regards to the resident’s requests regarding contact, evidenced a clear lack of understanding of reasonable adjustments in that it sought to suggest how contact should work that rather than listening and responding to the views of the resident and the IMHA about what changes could be made to best suit the resident’s needs.
  17. In addition, when concerns were raised about the conduct of its employees, the landlord would be expected to conduct a fair and objective investigation, including interviewing the resident, and in this case the IMHA, in order to get an understanding of the concern from their perspective. However, there is no evidence of either of the senior members of staff interviewing the resident or the IMHA. As such the landlord has failed to evidence that it took the concerns raised seriously, or that it had conducted a fair investigation. Further to this the attitude of the landlord towards the IMHA, who was a professional advocate, was neither appropriate nor solution focused, and its allegations that the IMHA had been confrontational, dismissive and contributed to difficulties in communication with the resident, based on what appears to be its limited investigation, was also neither fair nor reasonable.
  18. The two senior officers’ failure to recognise and address failings by the resident’s housing officer meant that the resident’s contact with that officer continued for a further three months, until the officer left the landlord’s service on 5 March 2021. During this time the IMHA again wrote to the landlord again on 16 February 2021, to express their concerns about the approach of the housing officer, which the IMHA reported as being aggressive and intimidating. The IMHA reported that in her many years as an advocate she had never been spoken to in that manner, no action was taken by the landlord.
  19. In its stage one response of 17 June 2021, whilst the landlord apologised for any distress that may have been caused by the housing officer’s approach, it again failed to either recognise or address any failings by the housing officer, stating that they were an ‘‘exceptional officer’’. The landlord also said that it was satisfied with the reviews carried out by the two senior officers and could find no reason to conclude that their suggestions were unreasonable. There was no mention of the IMHA’s email of 16 February 2021, in the landlord’s response, nor is there any evidence of the complaint handler contacted either the IMHA or the resident to give them an opportunity to explain their point of view.
  20. In its final response, the landlord again apologised for any distress caused to the resident and repeated that the resident’s request for a change in case officer had been considered by two senior member of staff. However, again the landlord failed to recognise any of the failures identified in this report with regard to its duties to the resident under The Equality Act 2010, the RSH’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard or its own Safeguarding Policy.
  21. The landlord did address the resident’s request to have a named housing officer and its response to this was reasonable. The Equalities Act does not define what is ‘reasonable’ but guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggest that the practicality of making a requested adjustment might be a relevant factor. In this case, given that the housing team are small team of three people, working across cases and, as the landlord explained, in the past there had been difficulties if an officer was off sick or on leave, it was reasonable for the landlord to say that this request would not be practicable.
  22. That the resident’s case could be considered by two senior members of the landlord and go through a two stage complaints process without at any point considering whether it had taken appropriate steps to ensure that it complied with its duty to the resident as an extremely vulnerable person is a significant failure by the landlord.
  23. Such a comprehensive failure could be indicative of a systemic issue within the landlord. However, within the document’s provided by the landlord, there are emails from the landlord’s Resident Support Specialist (RSS) of 8 September 2020, referenced in the Summary of events, and an email of 27 November 2020, which provide examples of good practice within the landlord. The email of 8 September 2020 flagged up concerns regarding the resident’s mental health and the email of 27 November 2020 advises the IMHA that in the two previous days a bulk mail letter was sent to the resident. The RSS said that if the IMHA were to give them a call they could explain the contents with them so they could discuss it with the resident. The IMHA emailed the RSS on 30 November 2020, to thank them for being considerate of the resident’s need to have an advocate help her with written information and to say that they had explained the purpose of the letter to both the resident and her sister.
  24. The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
    1. Be fair
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcome
  25. Given the level of failings identified in this report, and the lack of fairness shown to the resident, the landlord has been ordered to put things right by providing the resident with an apology from a senior director, making a payment of £1000 compensation and for the landlord to meet with the resident, and a representative of her choosing, to discuss her needs and how the landlord might response to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with her.
  26. Orders have also been made for the landlord to consider its overall approach to how it responds to the needs of its vulnerable residents and its duties under the Equalities act, to ensure that similar situations do not occur going forward and for a senior management review to be conducted into the case to identify any additional learning and improvement, and report to the appropriate governing body the outcome.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to concerns raised about the attitude and approach of the resident’s former housing officer and the resident’s request for that officer to be changed.

Reasons

  1. There was a failure by the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had respond to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with her.
  2. Despite the resident’s concerns being considered by two senior officers and through a two stage complaints process, the landlord failed to recognise, acknowledge or apologise for its failings, or to take any action to put things right.
  3. This service has seen evidence of where reasonable adjustments have been made across the landlord services, however, despite the resident’s concerns being considered by two senior officers and through a two stage complaints process, the landlord failed to recognise, acknowledge or apologise for its failures to follow to appropriately respond to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments or to act in accordance with its own safeguarding policy. These failures led to missed opportunities which adversely impacted the resident.

Orders

  1. That within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology is to be made by a senior director and the resident is to be given the choice as to whether this is verbal or in writing.
    2. Pay the resident £1000 compensation.
    3. Meet with the resident and her choice of representative to discuss her needs and in particular what additional support, consideration or variation in usual service provision might be appropriate in respect of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
    4. Conduct a senior management review into the case to identify any additional learning and improvement, and report to the appropriate governing body the outcome.
    5. Ensure that its Vulnerability Policy and Reasonable adjustments Policy are easily accessible on its website and to review what staff training might be necessary to ensure that both of these policies are embedded throughout the organisation.
    6. Write to the resident’s representative, and this service, to set out what measures it has put in place to ensure that there are improvements to how it delivers its service to its vulnerable residents going forward.
    7. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.