Waltham Forest Council (202002130)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002130

Waltham Forest Council

4 May 2021

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 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. Implementation of reasonable adjustments.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Communication with the resident.
4. Handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. Implementation of reasonable adjustments.
This is because it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this through the courts or other tribunal or procedure because this Service does not have the expertise or legally-binding authority to determine breaches of, or to enforce the requirement to, make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 in the way that a court or other tribunal or procedure might.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Therefore, the landlord’s implementation of reasonable adjustments in its communication with the resident will not be considered in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has reported being dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports to it about the above issues since January 2019; however, while some historical events may be included for context, the scope of this investigation is limited to consideration of his reports to it from March 2020 onwards. This is because this Service cannot investigate complaints about matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The resident’s formal complaint to the landlord was not made within a reasonable period of his earlier reports to it prior to March 2020.
As the landlord is a local authority, aspects of this case relate to its provision of social care services to the resident. While these details have been included for contextual purposes, a determination will not be made on these aspects, as they fall properly within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in respect of its provision and management of housing to the resident.
The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a one-bedroomed flat within a block containing six flats. He has mental health vulnerabilities resulting from being autistic; this means that he requires communications to be ‘autism-friendly’. The resident has specified that this means no complex written communications and a preference for voice communication but not from withheld telephone numbers.

Summary of events

The resident made previous reports of ASB against his neighbour in 2019, in which he alleged that the neighbour had threatened him and had held a barbecue where they had used drugs. This had resulted in the landlord investigating the alleged perpetrator and issuing ASB incident diary sheets to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 March 2020, copying in multiple parties. In this he raised the following issues:
1. He had to keep escalating matters before they were dealt with and the landlord’s staff had no training in dealing with his specific mental health condition, leading to poor customer service from it.
2. He said that it wrote to the residents of his block on two occasions, stating that it had received reports of breaches, which put him at risk of retaliation from his neighbours as they could deduce who made the reports.
3. He was dissatisfied with the landlord not providing information on the performance of staff and felt that certain staff dressed inappropriately and were not trained to hold meetings with residents.
4. He said that he had reported that his neighbours were storing items in the communal fire escape area and had tampered with the front doors of their properties. The resident said that this was a risk in the event of a fire and yet the landlord had taken no tenancy action against his neighbours which meant the issues continued.
On 20 March 2020, the resident sent an email addressed to multiple parties and agencies, which he copied the landlord into. In this, he asserted that the landlord had been in breach of fire-safety regulations by notifying the residents of his block to remove items from the fire escape but not carrying out any enforcement action despite the deadline for their removal passing.
Later that day the resident sent another email to his MP, copying in multiple parties in which he said he was “alone and scared for [his] safety”, was “fearful of [his] neighbours” and was “too afraid to leave [his] flat”. He said he had no support, and the police would not take any action unless a direct threat was made to him. The resident said he was “facing being locked in with no food all weekend”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 March 2020 to ask for more information on the difficulties he was facing, to which he directed it to “ask anyone from CEO down”. He sent a further email later that day to another party, copying in the landlord, in which he said he had “effectively been imprisoned” by the landlord because, in response to his reports of other resident’s leaving items in the fire escape and tampering with fire doors, it had written to them. The resident felt that the letter it had sent effectively revealed his identity to his neighbours as he was the only one who did not leave items on the fire escape. He relayed that his neighbour “had a go at [him]” on receipt of the letter and he was now unable to leave his property for fear of reprisal from his neighbours.
It is evident that the resident subsequently received help from a local authority Community Independent Living Officer (CILO), that he was satisfied with, which enabled him to clear his property of rubbish and also suggested mediation to him. In an email from the CILO to the landlord on 31 March 2020, they informed it that he continued to be unhappy that it made calls to him from withheld telephone numbers, which he did not answer. The CILO advised him to specify a preferred point of contact whose telephone number should be made available to him. They also relayed to the landlord that the resident would need to improve relations with his neighbours as there was no evidence that they were threatening him.
In an email from the CILO to the landlord on 1 April 2020 they informed it that the resident was willing to enter into mediation with two of his neighbours and he was provided with information about this. The landlord was informed that he was still awaiting “realistic” dates for updates about fire doors, which he reported the previous year, and neighbours’ items, which were still being left in communal areas.
The police emailed the landlord on the same day to advise that they had received reports of problems within his block which had prevented him from leaving his home to buy essentials; however, they had been unsuccessful in contacting him about this and requested it to provide them with more information, ahead of them conducting a welfare visit to his property.
The landlord’s internal emails on 2 April 2020 showed that it had requested residents of the block to remove items from the communal areas on 20 March 2020. These also showed that it had arranged for its staff to remove the remaining items that day and renew smoke seals to a neighbour’s front door.
On 11 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report that other residents were breaching social distancing guidelines, and this was preventing him from leaving his property. The following day he reported to it that his neighbours were creating a fire risk by having a barbecue on their second-floor balcony, which he had reported to the police. The landlord wrote to residents of the block on 14 April 2020 to remind them that barbecues on balconies were prohibited.
On 17 April 2020, the resident emailed multiple parties and the landlord to report that he had needed to call the police again regarding neighbours having barbecues on their balconies. He expressed concern that the landlord “refuse[d] to take any action”. Later that day, the landlord asked the CILO to speak to the resident to inform him that it would be writing to residents about barbecues being prohibited on balconies and it would be putting up posters to remind residents of social distancing guidelines. The CILO responded to it that day to confirm this had been relayed to the resident.
On 18 April 2020, the resident reported to the landlord and multiple parties that his neighbours had violated corona virus guidelines by visiting each other. He contended that this was criminal activity and therefore a breach of tenancy.
The landlord wrote to the residents of the block on 20 April 2020 to advise that smoking, holding barbecues, and leaving items in the communal areas were breaches of tenancy as well as health and safety concerns. It confirmed that it would take enforcement action in response to these behaviours.
On 21 April 2020, the resident reported to multiple parties, including the landlord, of his neighbour not following corona virus guidelines.
On 24 April 2020, the landlord wrote to all residents of the block to remind them of the corona virus guidelines, adding that being in breach of these could lead to police fining rule-breakers.
The landlord’s internal email on 27 April 2020 confirmed that, due to his mental health condition, it had referred him to a CILO to act as his single point of contact (SPOC) and had referred him to mediation to attempt to improve his relationship with his neighbours. It received reports of the resident perpetrating ASB which he had persisted with despite advice against this from his CILO and therefore it would need to investigate this. The landlord confirmed that it had explained to him that it could not enforce breaches of social distancing.
On 30 April 2020, the resident reported to multiple parties and the landlord that two of his neighbours had left rubbish outside his door and on the grounds of the estate. Later that day he emailedthe directors of the landlord’s organisation to contend that its staff were “ignoring disabilities” which was having an impact on his mental health. The resident relayed that they had failed to respond to his communications and exhibited poor customer service skills. He was unhappy that his reports of residents tampering with fire doors and storing items in the fire escape were only acted upon after his having to “continuously chase” an outcome and questioned why estate inspections had not been carried out to identify these issues.
The resident also emailed multiple parties and the landlord on 30 April 2020 to express his frustration with “the lack of support” provided by the landlord. He asserted that he had moved to the property two years ago and had been assured during the sign-up process that his mental health vulnerabilities would be noted on his records and shared with all departments, but he had discovered a year later that this had not been done. The resident said that the landlord’s staff still contacted him without knowledge of his conditions.
The resident reported that “all other tenants” in his block had carried out criminal activity ranging from drug use to breaking corona virus lockdown restrictions and the landlord had not taken any action despite him receiving a threat from one of his neighbours. He said that he had been “locked in” at the beginning of the corona virus lockdown due to its lack of action against his neighbours for “blocking fire safety regulations” and it only took action after “several weeks” of contact from him.
On 6 May 2020, the landlord asked the CILO to relay to the resident that it had made arrangements to clear the rubbish he had reported.
On 11 May 2020, the landlord’s mediation service informed it that the resident had requested to postpone mediation until his mental health improved and he received a response to previous communication he had sent it.
On 12 May 2020, the resident reported that his neighbours were latching the doors open again and asked when the landlord was going to take action.
On 18 May 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to arrange an appointment to discuss allegations of ASB made against him.
The landlord’s internal email on 26 May 2020 recorded that it would allocate a SPOC to the resident, who would liaise with him through his CILO.
The resident reported to the landlord and multiple parties on 27 May 2020 that he had accumulated three weeks’ worth of rotten cat litter in his bathroom and held that the landlord had not responded to him for 13 weeks. He advised that he would be raising a complaint if it did not explain why there had been no response for it.
After intervention from a local councillor, the landlord arranged on 29 May 2020 to collect the rubbish from the resident’s property, which it asked his CILO to relay to him. This was confirmed cleared on 1 June 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord and multiple parties on 2 June 2020 to report one of his neighbours “causing a nuisance” on the estate and not social distancing. He emailed it and multiple parties again later that day to say that rubbish was again building up in his property and wanted to know how the landlord was going to resolve it, as he had been unable to leave due to “continued terror of [his] neighbours”.
The landlord contacted the police on 4 June 2020 to investigate the resident’s report of being “terrorised” by his neighbours. They responded to it on 7 June 2020 to advise that they had received no reports of this.
On 5 June 2020, the resident advised his CILO that he would no longer deal with them.
The resident emailed the landlord and multiple parties on 10 June 2020 to ask again when it would deal with his rubbish. The landlord responded the next day to advise that its collection of his rubbish on 1 June 2020 was a “one-off” attendance and it would not be able to do this regularly for him; it advised him to dispose of his rubbish in the bins outside.
Regarding a report from the resident of receiving a telephone call without an identifying telephone number, the landlord explained that its telephony system automatically withheld the specific contact number making the call and instead displayed the generic call centre number to identify that it was calling. The staff member identified themselves as the resident’s SPOC and encouraged him to contact them directly in future, rather than multiple parties, to enable it to “respond to [his] queries and avoid any overlap”. The SPOC noted that the resident had been allocated a care coordinator from mental health services and encouraged him to engage with this.
On 17 June 2020, the resident addressed an email to multiple parties, omitting his SPOC, to report nuisance from children playing outside.
The resident addressed an email to the landlord and multiple parties, omitting his SPOC, later on 17 June 2020 in which he said that it was “ignoring” him. He expressed frustration with its ASB reporting procedures and said that he was “afraid” of his neighbours. The resident asked for an apology from the landlord and questioned its willingness to make reasonable adjustments in respect of his disability.
An internal landlord email on 19 June 2020 noted that the resident had been refusing to email his assigned SPOC.
The resident contacted this Service on 19 June 2020 to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of:
1. his reports of ASB
2. his formal complaint
3. assigning him a SPOC without explanation
4. his request for reasonable adjustments.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 26 June 2020 to request that it provide a response to him about his concerns about his reports of ASB, the progress of his formal complaint, and the reasons why his contact with it had been restricted to communication with one member of staff only.
On 30 June 2020, after being forwarded the resident’s emails from multiple parties, the landlord’s SPOC emailed him to assure him that his communication was not being ignored and urged him to make contact only through them. The resident replied later that day to refuse to deal with the SPOC and insisted that the SPOC cease contacting him.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 July 2020 to advise that it had received reports of him leaving his rubbish outside the door of his property. It acknowledged his reports that he had been too “scared” to leave the property to dispose of rubbish due to concerns about his neighbours attacking him. The landlord advised that it had found no evidence to support this and noted that the resident had previously said that he was “not ready” to enter into mediation. It confirmed to him that his leaving of his rubbish outside his door constituted a breach of his tenancy and it was his responsibility to put rubbish in the bins provided.
The landlord wrote a further letter to the resident on 2 July 2020 to inform him that it had received reports of ASB stemming from his use of a camera which recorded the communal area of the building. It reminded him of his tenancy conditions and invited him to attend a video interview to discuss the matter.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord’s SPOC emailed the resident to clarify that their purpose was to reduce duplication of the emails being sent by him to multiple parties which was “impacting [its] ability to effectively deal with [his] concerns”. It confirmed that he was required to dispose of his rubbish in the bins outside and that it had investigated his reports of intimidation from his neighbours but had found no evidence of this. The landlord advised that it had contacted the police who had not received any reports of this from resident. It asked him to provide further detail on the ASB he had experienced to enable it to investigate further.
The resident emailed the landlord and multiple external parties on 8 July 2020 to raise issues with its handling of the reports of ASB made against him. He was unhappy that the SPOC was still contacting him and that it had written to him about leaving items in the communal area when it had not taken action against other residents for doing so. The resident questioned the landlord’s statement that there was no evidence of the intimidation he reported and referred to a video he had sent it the previous year of his neighbour threatening him. He said that it was treating him as “vexatious”, yet he had received no letter confirming this arrangement.
In response to intervention from this Service on 26 June 2020 requesting the landlord update the resident, it wrote to him on 9 July 2020. It explained the actions it had taken in response to his report on 2 June 2020 that he was being “terrorised” by his neighbours. These actions included a door-knocking exercise and liaising with the police; it found no evidence of his reports. The landlord encouraged him to report any further evidence of these allegations to his SPOC to allow it to investigate. It said that, at his request, it had written to his neighbours to encourage them to observe social distancing guidelines and instruct them not to leave items in communal areas.
The landlord informed the resident that it had evidence of ASB perpetrated by him and had therefore opened a formal ASB case to investigate this and any counter allegations he may make. It asserted that it had made several adjustments in consideration of his mental health needs. These included assigning an CILO to assist him, offering mediation between him and his neighbours, assigning him a SPOC to manage the issues he raised, and referring him for mental health support. The landlord noted that the resident had refused to engage with these measures.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that there was no active formal complaint open for him; instead, it asked him to cooperate with its ASB investigation. It urged him to engage with his SPOC to avoid duplication of the issues he had raised and assist it in resolving these matters.
On 14 July 2020, with the resident’s consent, his social worker contacted the landlord to provide details of his mental health condition and inform it of his engagement with medical support. The social worker requested that the landlord cease tenancy enforcement action in light of the resident’s condition.
The landlord responded later that day to confirm to the resident and his social worker that it would suspend all enforcement action on the following conditions:
1. That the resident engage with a “joint working group” to support him in managing his tenancy and his health needs.
2. That he immediately cease leaving his rubbish outside his door in the communal area.
3. That he immediately remove CCTV cameras which monitored his neighbours without their or the landlord’s permission.
4. That he stopped sending “abusive” emails to multiple parties and communicated through his assigned SPOC.
On 17 July 2020, the landlord agreed with the resident’s social worker to not make any further contact with him directly and for the social worker to pass on its correspondence.
The resident emailed the landlord’s ASB officer and multiple parties on 22 July 2020 to say that it was encouraging his “bullying” by his neighbours. He described neighbours at three addresses “intimidating” him and purposefully causing him distress and contended that they were doing so in retaliation for his reporting them for “law breaking activity”. He said that this behaviour had left him unable to leave his property since the commencement of the corona virus lockdown in February and the landlord had done nothing about this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 August 2020 to report that one of his neighbours was still latching open their door and wanted to know why no action had been taken against them in the 18 months since reporting that the neighbour had threatened him. He also questioned why another neighbouring family had not been evicted despite being raided by the police and “several convictions in this family”.
The landlord received an email from the police on 14 August 2020 which declined to provide further information on the family previously mentioned by the resident on 9 August 2020. The police relayed that they had spoken to the resident and he had made no allegations and “made no mention of reporting a crime”.
The resident spoke to this Service on 15 August 2020 to describe his difficulties in raising his complaints to the landlord because of the SPOC. We contacted it later that day to encourage to engage with him to address his concerns and clarify the status of his complaint. The Ombudsman requested the landlord to consider the resident’s complaint at the final stage of its complaints procedure.
The landlord advised this Service on 19 August 2020 that it would contact the resident to request him to set out his complaint in writing, upon receipt of which it would issue a final stage complaint response within 25 working days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 August 2020 to set out his complaint. In this he complained about:
1. The conduct of a staff member which included their non-response to his contact and leaving a public meeting due to the resident’s alleged “rude and abusive” behaviour.
2. The landlord not acting on his reports of ASB and tenancy breaches from his neighbours which involved the leaving of items in the fire escape, and its refusal to provide a copy of its estate inspection report.
3. The landlord’s “refusal” to call him from a non-private number and refusal to provide a mobile telephone number, which he considered to be “discriminatory”.
4. Why the landlord had not reported the theft of six computers from its community room to the police.
5. The imposition of a SPOC on him twice by the landlord which he felt was “unlawful” as it had not followed the correct policy and procedure.
Following contact from the resident expressing his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the complaint, this Service requested on 22 September 2020 that it issue its final stage complaint to the resident within 20 working days.The landlord replied to this the following day to state that its deadline for a response was 28 September 2020.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 28 September 2020 which addressed his dissatisfaction with its handling of his reports of ASB and the imposition of a SPOC for his communication. It explained that it had received contact from him addressed to “multiple [landlord] officers, different individuals and organisations about housing matters”, and the purpose of the SPOC was to coordinate its response to him without duplication.
The landlord stated that the SPOC had not been implemented under its unreasonable behaviour policy but as an adjustment to take in account the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities. It noted that he had refused in June 2020 to deal with the original SPOC assigned to him and it had assigned him another SPOC.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had made reports of ASB from his neighbours which included them not observing social distancing guidelines, dog nuisance, use and distribution of drugs, noise from children, and unauthorised parties. It noted that reports of ASB had been made against himself and it had put formal action regarding these on hold until he received professional help. The landlord asserted that it had taken the appropriate actions in response to the resident’s reports which included it offering him support, issuing warning letters, liaising with police, and offering mediation.
The landlord noted that the resident had complained about a particular staff member’s dress, their case handling, and them not responding to him in a timely manner. It asserted that the staff member dressed appropriately for work, kept thorough records, and had not always been able to respond as quickly as the resident wanted due to the workload and the volume of correspondence submitted by him. The landlord noted that the resident was unhappy that he had not received responses from senior staff; it explained that this was due to him having been assigned a SPOC and therefore contact would be made through that person.
The landlord found that the majority of the resident’s complaints were due to him being dissatisfied that its responses to him were not as detailed or as fast as he wanted, or that it did not take the actions that he wanted. It acknowledged his explanation that this was a fact of his condition. The landlord explained that the corona virus pandemic had put pressure on its resources and that it had attempted to balance the resident’s requests with those of other residents. It concluded that it had followed its procedures and had made reasonable adjustments in its service to him. The landlord confirmed this was its final response to the resident’s complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policies

The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord confirms that he must not store or accumulate rubbish within the property and rubbish should be disposed of in the designated receptacles provided. This agreement also confirms that shared areas, such as landings and stairwells, must be kept free of personal belongings or rubbish.
The landlord’s policy on dealing with unreasonable behaviour states that this policy can be invoked when there is evidence of a resident’s unreasonable, unacceptable or frivolous behaviour over a period of time. Examples provided of such behaviour are derogatory remarks and offensive language, insisting on speaking with specific members of staff and contacting many staff members, councillors and third parties.
The above policy also specifies that due regard must be shown to a resident’s vulnerabilities and any restrictions imposed should be appropriate to their circumstances. The reasons for the restrictions should be explained to the resident, along with the nature of the restriction and the expected timeframe of the restriction. The policy also confirms that communication will only be restricted once the resident has been informed that their behaviour has been unreasonable.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will take action against people responsible for ASB. This procedure confirms that behaviour relating to communal areas and garden nuisance are examples of low risk ASB and it will liaise with agencies and partners in tackling ASB which include mediation services and the police. Under this procedure, the landlord is to respond to a report of low risk ASB within five days.
The landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments webpage confirms that it has a two-stage complaints procedure. This states that it will acknowledge a complaint within three working days, respond to a stage one complaint within 20 working days and respond to a final stage complaint within 25 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payments of £100 to £300 to be paid in recognition of an “injustice” which has caused distress to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord had an obligation to investigate reports of ASB and this Service would expect its response to these to be proportionate to the level of ASB reported. It is noted that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with it not taking enforcement action against the residents he believed were perpetrating ASB. Tenancy enforcement action is only an appropriate response when there is clear objective evidence of a tenancy breach and the enforcement action should be proportionate to the severity of the breach.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction on 25 March 2020 with the landlord sending a letter to his neighbours on 20 March 2020 in response to his reports of them storing items on the communal fire escape. He said that this letter had identified him as the party complaining about his neighbours and he appeared to have inferred this identification as he stated that he was the only one who did not participate in the activity. There is no evidence that the landlord revealed the resident made the report. It therefore responded in a timely, reasonable and proportionate manner in writing to the residents and then subsequently removing the items on 2 April 2020.
In response to the resident’s report of his neighbours having barbecues on their balconies on 17 April 2020, the landlord wrote to them on 20 April 2020 to deter them from activity that breached their tenancy agreements. In response to his reports on 11 and 18 April 2020 of resident’s breaching corona virus guidelines, it wrote to them on 24 April 2020 to remind them of these guidelines and advise of the penalties for non-compliance. These were also timely, reasonable, and proportionate responses to the resident’s reports.
It is noted that the landlord liaised with police on 1 April, 4 June and 14 August 2020 about the resident’s reports of ASB, and it arranged for mediation for him, which he postponed sometime before 11 May 2020. These were reasonable and proportionate responses to his reports which were in accordance with its ASB procedure, above at point 71.
In conclusion, the landlord responded in a timely, reasonable and proportionate way to the resident’s reports of ASB, in accordance with its ASB procedure and there was no evidence of a failure on its part.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

It would be expected of a landlord to communicate with a resident in a way which is reasonable and appropriate to their circumstances. It was therefore reasonable for it to communicate with the resident through the CILO who had been assigned to him in consideration of his mental health needs, which was evident in the landlord’s internal email on 27 April 2020. This demonstrated that it took into account his circumstances and made efforts to correspond with him through an intermediary which he was satisfied with until 5 June 2020 when he ceased to deal with the CILO.
It is evident that the resident did not engage with the SPOC allocated to him. In light of the volume of his correspondence, which was addressed to multiple parties, it was reasonable for the landlord to assign him a SPOC to ensure that its resources were used efficiently. It is noted that the SPOC contacted him on 10 June 2020 to explain this to him. However, it did not clarify, until its final stage complaint response on 28 September 2020, that it had restricted his contact to his SPOC as an “adjustment” for his mental health needs.
In light of the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not explain how the implementation of his SPOC had come about, and the terms of this, until over three months after it came into force. While the landlord held that it did not impose its contact restriction on him under its policy on dealing with unreasonable behaviour, above at points 69 and 70, it did state that it partly came about due to his correspondence being made to multiple parties. Therefore, its policy on dealing with unreasonable behaviour would still apply, and the landlord failed to act in accordance with this by informing the resident of the nature of the restriction and the timeframe of the restriction.
Furthermore, the landlord’s policy on dealing with unreasonable behaviour states that due regard should be paid to the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its failure to provide full information on the nature of the contact restriction was likely to have caused further distress to him because of his vulnerabilities and was a further failure on its part to act in accordance with its policy.
Considering the landlord’s failure to enact its dealing with unreasonable behaviour policy correctly, and the likely distress caused to the resident by this, compensation of £250 should be paid to him. This is broadly in accordance with its compensation policy, above at point 73, and this Service’s remedies guidance where there has been “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy”.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 26 June 2020 to request it respond to the resident’s complaint. However, it did not raise a formal complaint until 19 August 2020 after further intervention from this Service, when it advised that it would investigate the complaint at the final stage of its procedure. This was 35 working days in excess of the three working day timeframe specified on the landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments webpage, above at point 72.
The landlord’s final stage complaint response was also issued two working days in excess of the 25-working day timeframe published on the landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments webpage. Therefore, the resolution of the resident’s complaint was unreasonably delayed and compensation of £100 should be paid to him. This is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy at point 73, and this Service’s remedies guidance where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 Of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its communication with the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable and proportionate actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord failed to acknowledge that its dealing with unreasonable behaviour policy applied in its imposition of contact restriction on the resident and failed to provide adequate information to him about this.
The landlord failed to raise a formal complaint in a timely manner and this required further intervention from the resident and this Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days, the landlord is to pay £350 compensation to the resident.
Within 28 days, the landlord is to write to the resident to explain the reasons for his contact restriction, how long this would last, and his options should he wish to appeal this.

Recommendations

The landlord is to review its procedures for dealing with residents with mental health vulnerabilities and provide training if necessary.
Evidence should be provided to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been carried out.