Stockport Homes Limited (202419791)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419791

Stockport Homes Limited

21 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s subject access request.
   2. Imposing contact restrictions on the resident.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is an arm’s-length management organisation (ALMO) which is owned by the local council but operates independently on day-to-day matters. The landlord’s records say the resident has autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
4. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 August 2024. The email was a summary of dialogue that took place between each party. It said the resident had called as he felt staff did not listen to him and were dismissive when he spoke to them.
5. The resident spoke to a manager at the landlord on 12 August 2024. He asked it to apply a reasonable adjustment to allow him to contact it by phone. Following the call the landlord decided to put restrictions on the resident’s contact with it due to his excessive contact with it.
6. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 August 2024. He made a subject access request (SAR).
7. The local council wrote to the resident on 19 August 2024. It said the landlord had informed it about the resident’s excessive contact. The council stated the resident’s contact with the landlord was restricted and the matter would be reviewed in 12 months.
8. The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 20 August 2024. He said his behaviour had not been unreasonable. He asked it to remove the contact restrictions. The resident also contacted us about his complaint to the landlord the same day.
9. On 30 August 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said the contact restrictions would remain in place.
10. The resident told the landlord on 11 September and 11 October 2024 he was unhappy with its response to his complaint.
11. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 November 2024. It did not uphold his complaint. It said it would not remove the contact restrictions at that time.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

12. The resident complained to the landlord regarding the information it provided in response to his SAR.
13. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
14. The body which considers complaints about how a person’s personal data is handled by an organisation is the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
15. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the information he received from the landlord in response to his SAR is outside of our jurisdiction and we cannot consider this part of his complaint. The resident may wish to visit the ICO website www.ico.org.uk for further information if he wishes to pursue this matter.

The landlord’s handling of imposing contact restrictions on the resident

16. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 May 2024. He told it he has ASD, ADHD and PTSD.
17. The landlord’s records state the resident contacted it on numerous occasions from 15 July 2024. The landlord has not provided any details of those calls in its evidence to us. The resident told us he contacted the landlord as both his neighbours and the landlord had made complaints against him. The resident told us he previously had a good relationship with the housing officer who had been appointed by the landlord. Following a different housing officer taking over, the resident said his relationship with the landlord deteriorated.
18. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 August 2024. He said its staff had terminated his calls because they said his behaviour was unacceptable. He disputed his behaviour had been unacceptable. In its evidence to us, the landlord explained it deemed the resident’s behaviour as unacceptable due to making persistent calls.
19. A manager from the landlord’s staff spoke to the resident on 12 August 2024. The landlord has provided us with a copy of that call recording. During the call the resident asked for a reasonable adjustment in how he was able to contact the landlord. He asked because of his mental health conditions for contact between the parties to be by phone.
20. The manager replied ‘‘the landlord could make a reasonable adjustment, but it would not come at the expense of the efficiency of the organisation’’. During the call the manager told the resident making frequent calls and raising issues was not good for the resident’s mental health. The resident said he was not happy with the manager’s comment. The call recording shows both parties spoke over each other for the remainder of the call. The manager said the resident’s contact would be restricted from that point onwards and the call ended.
21. The landlord has a policy covering unreasonable behaviour. It states “unreasonable persistent contact from residents” to be unacceptable behaviour. The policy clarifies the landlord will make reasonable allowances for behaviour which could be caused by stress or anxiety, or medical conditions which make effective communications difficult, with or without giving the appearance of being aggressive.
22. The policy goes on to state support will be offered to customers in instances where the possibility of resolving the matter will be improved by offering additional support, but the well-being of its staff is also of the upmost importance. It states the landlord may restrict contact or take legal action against the resident depending on the circumstances of the case.
23. The landlord has told us reasonable adjustments to its service may include giving resident’s extra time to express their concerns. It said it should recognise challenging behaviour could be due to complex mental health issues.
24. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 August 2024. He said he was unhappy with the call from the previous day. He said the manager he spoke to tried to bully, harass and intimidate him. He made a SAR and asked for copies of call recordings and call records from the previous week. The landlord is required under GDPR regulations to reply to a SAR within 1 month.
25. On 19 August 2024 the local council wrote to the resident. It is unclear why the council became involved in the matter as the decision was made by the landlord. It said the landlord had told it the resident’s contact ‘had become vexatious’, which by dictionary definition means it had been difficult to deal with. The council said it left the landlord unable to effectively assist him. It said since July 2024 he had called the landlord on 32 occasions, for a total of 397 minutes. It said the contact was regarded as unreasonable under the terms of the landlord’s unacceptable behaviour policy.
26. The council said the resident’s contact with the landlord had been restricted to:
    1. Calls to a dedicated phone number for emergency repairs.
    2. 1 email a fortnight for all other contact. It said any more emails than that would not be responded to unless he was reporting an immediate risk to life or threats to harm.
27. The council said if the resident failed to follow the contact restrictions it could make an application for an injunction to the County court. It said the landlord would review the restriction decision in 12 months.
28. The resident sent a complaint email to the landlord on 20 August 2024. He said his behaviour had not been unacceptable. He asked the landlord to remove the contact restrictions.
29. On 30 August 2024 the landlord sent a response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It did not uphold his complaint. It said it had listened to call recordings, including the call with a manager on 12 August 2024. It said the manager tried to engage with the resident. It said the manager’s comment made about the resident’s mental health was a genuine attempt to talk about his behaviour. It said the manager was very professional and positive and they would do their best to support the resident.
30. The landlord said it received a copy of a letter sent to the resident by an NHS specialist support team on 12 April 2024 regarding his health. The landlord did not say when it received the letter, but it provided us with a copy during this investigation. The NHS letter said the referral to their service was due to the resident being verbally aggressive to the landlord’s staff. They said the resident had been diagnosed with ASD and bipolar disorder. They recommended services supporting him should recognise the role of his diagnosis in shaping his behaviour.
31. The landlord said the information provided by the NHS helped it to understand his actions and why he might become frustrated and angry. It said it would record those details on its databases.
32. Regarding the decision to restrict his contact access with it, the landlord said there had been 26 call recordings taken over 3 months. It added several calls were over half an hour long and the resident was aggressive during them. The landlord did not specify which calls it referred to. The landlord said the contact restrictions would remain in place.
33. Analysis of the landlord’s complaint response shows it demonstrated the provisions set out in its unacceptable behaviour policy as part of its consideration on the contact restrictions. The landlord showed it considered information provided by the NHS about the resident’s diagnosis. By following the steps required as per its policy when making its decision, the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
34. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 September 2024. He said he was not happy with its complaint response. He denied his behaviour had been unacceptable. He said the landlord had failed to make a reasonable adjustment for his communication with it.
35. The landlord responded to the resident’s SAR on 13 September 2024. This was within the GDPR policy timescale.
36. The landlord emailed the resident on 20 September 2024. It asked for reasons why he was not happy with the stage 1 complaint response. The resident replied on 11 October 2024. He said it had not provided copies of call recordings in its SAR response which it relied upon to show his behaviour was unacceptable. He again asked for a reasonable adjustment for his contact with the landlord to be by phone because of his mental health conditions. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 25 October 2024.
37. On 18 November 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It did not uphold his complaint. The landlord said it had listened again to the call recording from 12 August 2024. It said it found no evidence the manager had bullied, harassed or intimidated the resident.
38. The landlord said it had reviewed its decision to restrict the resident’s contact. It said the resident had called 32 times since 15 July 2024. It regarded this as ‘’unreasonable persistence’’ in accordance with its unacceptable behaviour policy. The landlord said it accepted the resident’s diagnosis of ASD and bipolar disorder could affect his ability to communicate with it. However, it said the access to its services had to be balanced with the wellbeing of its staff and its ability to deliver its service in a fair and proportionate way.
39. The landlord confirmed the contact restrictions would remain in place. It said it believed the decision was reasonable and in line with its policy, due to his behaviour. It said it would review the decision again on 19 August 2025.
40. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has 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.
41. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘properly considered how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so’. Ultimately it is for the courts to determine whether any adjustments (requested or provided) are reasonable. However, we can investigate whether a landlord has properly considered whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by disabled people.
42. A review of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response shows it reconsidered the decision to restrict the resident’s contact with it. It considered his health conditions as part of its decision making. The evidence shows the landlord decided the restrictions were in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy and would remain in place. However, the landlord demonstrated through its response that it addressed the matters raised in the escalated complaint.
43. In summary, in making its decision to restrict the resident’s contact with it, the landlord appropriately followed its unacceptable behaviour policy. The resident asked it to make a reasonable adjustment for his contact to be made by telephone, due to his health conditions.
44. The evidence shows prior to restricting his contact, the landlord was open to his request for contact to be made by phone. We are satisfied the landlord has provided evidence it properly considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and took account of the resident’s vulnerabilities in making its decisions and reviews around the contact restrictions in place. As such, this leads to a determination there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of imposing contact restrictions on the resident.
45. During this investigation the resident told us he would like to have a mediation meeting with the landlord to work towards a better relationship. As such we have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider the restrictions in place and work with the resident to try to reach an agreement for contact going forwards which provides him with support but does not negatively affect the landlord’s resources or staff.
46. We encourage the landlord to consider if it does not deem full unrestricted contact to be a viable option, it should consider whether there are solutions within the restrictions it deems reasonable to enable some contact to be made by phone in line with the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

Complaint handling

47. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint handling policy. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgment and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
48. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 August 2024. It did not acknowledge the complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
49. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 August 2024, in line with its complaint policy timescale.
50. On 11 September 2024 the resident told the landlord he was not happy with its response to his complaint. The landlord did not treat this as a request for a review of his complaint.
51. The resident asked the landlord to review the complaint on 11 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 25 October 2024. This was outside of the complaints policy timescale.
52. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 November 2024. This was a delay which was outside of its complaint policy timescale.
53. In summary, the landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy timescales at most stages of its process. It failed to offer redress for any of the associated delays or inconvenience caused by its failures. These failings lead to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order for compensation has been made below.

Determination

54. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of imposing contact restrictions on the resident.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

57. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £75 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Recommendation

58. It is recommended the landlord conduct mediation to discuss future contact with the resident. The outcome of mediation should aim to provide appropriate support to the resident in line with his request for a reasonable adjustment for how he is permitted to contact the landlord, but not negatively affect the landlord’s resources or staff to make that contact.
59. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and recommendation to us within 4 weeks.