Notting Hill Genesis (202000896)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000896

Notting Hill Genesis

28 February 2021

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

The complaint is about:

The landlord’s decision to contact the resident by telephone.
The landlord’s staff conduct during the telephone call on 31 January 2019.
The landlord’s decision to instigate its safe-guarding procedure following receipt of the resident’s email on 1 February 2019.
The landlord’s complaint-handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a tenancy with the landlord since July 2018. Due to the level of contact the resident had with the landlord and the complexity of issues she was facing which she felt the landlord was not addressing with sufficient detail, on 19 October 2018 a communication agreement was put in place regarding how the landlord intended to communicate with the resident. It set out that a particular staff member of the landlord would respond to all of the resident’s queries once a week on Friday. As a further element of the arrangement, the landlord was not to telephone the resident directly, but rather contact her daughter.
At the time of the telephone call on 31 January 2019, the resident was living in temporary accommodation, being a guest room in a sheltered accommodation scheme. The resident had been moved into the temporary accommodation following concerns about the behaviour of her neighbour in the property above who had caused nuisance to her. The landlord was carrying out works on the property above to resolve the issue and intended to have the resident move back to the property once the works were completed. The landlord had a staff member on site at the temporary accommodation who operated in an office two rooms away from the resident’s temporary guest room.
The resident has a number of physical and mental health vulnerabilities for which she is required to take regular medications, which the landlord is aware of.
In late January 2019, the resident had emailed the landlord for the second time in a particular week on the basis that she had immediate medical needs that had to be considered by the landlord in the context of her housing arrangements. The resident stated that she had spoken to a staff member who had advised her to send the second email despite this being outside the agreement regarding the contact arrangements. The resident also stated that the landlord’s most recent response to her queries had failed to address various points she had previously raised.
On 31 January 2019 the landlord telephoned the resident. The following points were discussed:
1. The progress of the works on the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s property, and the potential timeline for her returning to her home.
2. The suitability of the temporary accommodation she was in at the time in light of her medical needs which she felt had not been properly considered prior to offering her the property.
3. The appropriateness of the emails being sent to the landlord by the resident based on their length and number of enquiries. The resident noted that the length of the emails was largely due to her belief that the landlord was not adequately responding to her enquiries, requiring her to repeat them.
4. Reference was made to the resident’s state of wellbeing and mental health on multiple occasions, with the landlord discussing a conversation it had had with the resident’s health advocate about the possibility of the resident admitting herself to hospital. The resident felt that the landlord was being resentful that the resident’s mental health advocate had contacted it for a status update, feeling that this was creating extra work for it. The resident also stated that the health issues needed to be addressed more promptly than in the email at the end of the week due to their urgency.
At the end of the phone call, the resident asked the staff member repeatedly and in a heightened emotional fashion whether he had spoken to the resident’s original housing officer the previous Friday, after which the call ended seemingly due to poor reception in the resident’s room. The landlord’s staff member who took the call has asserted that they did not hear the resident’s question at the end of the phone call, and the landlord states this is supported by the fact that in the recording the staff member continues the conversation for some time without responding to the resident’s queries before the line goes dead.
Following the telephone call the resident visited the site facilities office and met with a different staff member. The staff member later signed a statement stating that the resident was “very upset” at the time she attended, but calmed down after discussing the issue for a few minutes before returning to her room.
On the same day, 31 January 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident with follow-up notes based on the discussion. It set out the works that were being carried out at her home to address the issues of noise nuisance and ASB, noting that it was hopeful these would be finalised within the coming weeks. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the temporary accommodation was not suitable for her needs, while noting that the situation was temporary. Additionally however it set out that there might be alternative accommodation for the temporary arrangements, stating that it would investigate these and update the resident.
The following day, on 1 February 2019, the resident returned to the site facilities office and apologised to the staff member she had spoken to after the phone call.
On the same day the resident replied to the landlord’s email at 3:58pm. In the email the resident set out various points, including:
1. During the phone call the landlord had been unhappy that the resident had sent two emails to it within a short period, contrary to the agreed upon communication arrangements, but a staff member had advised the resident to do this due to the urgency of the subject matter regarding her personal care needs. The landlord had not addressed all of her queries which had also prompted the need to send a follow-up email.
2. She was unhappy with the landlord’s conduct on the call, that he had been dismissive of her concerns and the distress she was experiencing. After the call had concluded she had felt significantly distressed and stated she “was determined to leave the building…and step into the path of an oncoming car.”
3. She had spoken to a member of the landlord’s staff immediately following the call at the site facilities office who had assisted her in calming down
4. The landlord’s follow-up email of that date did not make any reference to the heightened emotional conclusion or abrupt termination of the call.
Upon receipt of the resident’s email that day, 1 February 2019, the landlord’s internal records noted that the resident had emailed to “advise she wanted to jump out in front of car.” It contacted the police as part of its safeguarding procedure, who subsequently attended the property to check on the resident. The attending officers spoke with the resident and assessed that she was not a threat to herself at the time of their attendance.
On 4 February 2019 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord, noting the events that had transpired around the call, the resident’s follow-up email and the landlord’s decision to notify the police of their concerns for the resident’s wellbeing. She set out her concerns as:
1. The landlord’s staff member had breached the contact arrangement stating that it would only contact her once a week via email on a Friday. She believed that contacting her in the way it did was only done to save time in not having to reply via email, which the resident had stated she did not accept at the beginning of the call.
2. During the call she felt the staff member was dismissive of her concerns, ignoring her changing state of emotions from calm to agitated and her requests to allow her to explain her concerns.
3. The staff member had fixated on the fact that the resident had sent a second email to the landlord because of an urgent concern that had come up following an invasive medical procedure she had experienced. The resident explained that she had sent a second email in breach of the usual communication contract this because it concerned an urgent issue that she could not wait to have responded to.
4. The landlord should not have raised a safeguarding referral to the police, given the state of mind she had described in her follow-up email of 1 February 2019 referred to how she had been feeling immediately following the call, rather than her emotional state once she had calmed down and at the time of writing the email.
On 15 February 2019 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident in which it set out the following points:
1. The staff member had noted the resident was becoming emotional during the call discussing issues that had occurred previously, tried to focus the conversation but stated he felt the resident was only becoming more distressed and was failing to take the information in. At a certain point the line went dead and the landlord attempted to call back, but found the resident’s line to be engaged. It felt a follow-up email would allow the resident to respond in her own time. Based on the content of the call and previous interactions with the resident, it did not consider her to be at risk at that time.
2. Regarding the email received the following day, the landlord had noted the resident’s statement that the phone call had made her feel like she wanted to “jump out into the middle of the road and kill [her]self.” The staff member felt this was different to previous statements the resident had made about her mental health and intent to act and so felt that the best course of action was to follow its safeguarding procedure. It acknowledged that the resident had emailed to say that she had spoken to the landlord’s site facility officer, however it still considered there to be an immediate concern for the resident’s wellbeing on the basis of the email’s contents.
3. The landlord apologised for causing distress and impacting the resident’s health, noting that this was not the staff member’s intention. It had made the decision to telephone the resident as it was felt the options available to her could be better discussed over the phone allowing for any queries to be raised and answered rather than making the resident wait for a reply email.
4. The staff member who had made the call had been moved off the case, and a senior housing officer had been put in place to contact her in line with the agreed arrangement, once a week via email. It noted this would be a temporary measure until the works were completed on the property above her. A separate staff member would introduce the two face to face. It noted in future circumstances of safeguarding concerns it would attempt to contact the resident’s daughter, but if there were immediate concerns it would follow its safeguarding procedure which would involve contacting emergency services.
On the same day, 15 February 2019, the landlord’s internal notes record that the separate staff member has been put in place as a new point of contact for the resident. It was noted that this would be a temporary measure until it had completed the works on the property above her home.
On 18 February 2019 the landlord recorded a note stating that if it had concerns regarding the resident’s health and safety, it would first attempt to contact her daughter. It noted that if this was not possible and it was felt that there was immediate danger or concerns for the resident’s health, it would follow its safeguarding procedure which would entail contacting the emergency services.
On 26 February 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her enquiry, stating that it had not listened to the recording of the call as part of its stage one complaint investigation but could do so if she wished it to.
On 18 July 2019 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated. She noted 26 February 2019 email from the landlord saying that the call recording had not been listened to as part of the investigation. She questioned why this was the case and expressed her concern at the decision not to undertake this task as a core part of the investigation. She set out the following:
1. The landlord’s decision to breach the communication agreement, calling without giving notice or getting consent, not calling on the usual day and speaking over her repeatedly at the end of the call caused her significant distress. She considered the landlord’s decision to call her showed a disregard of how this would affect her mental health.
2. During the call, the landlord had dismissed the resident’s concerns that no assessments were undertaken as to the physical suitability of the guest room. The landlord had been adamant that the impact the property was having on her health was caused by her own mental health issues, rather than being caused by the landlord. It ignored the resident’s concern that the landlord were not allowing her basic physical and personal care needs to be met.
3. The landlord’s complaint response stated the landlord had made the decision to call the resident in part because he received an email from her expressing suicidal ideation. She stated that the landlord had muddled up the timeline, that she had expressed dissatisfaction with the property in the emails sent to the landlord prior to the call and that she had only expressed suicidal ideation after and as a direct result of the telephone call. The resident’s core position was that, if the heightened and emotional nature of the conclusion of the call had not given rise to an opinion of the landlord that the resident required safeguarding, the follow-up email should also not have been considered to have reached this threshold.
4. The resident felt the landlord should have contacted her daughter or the site facility officer who was present two doors away from the resident in the property, or made further attempts to contact her. She felt that the landlord had acted too late in enacting its safeguarding procedure, and stated that the police who attended the property agreed with her.
5. The landlord’s justification for contacting the police was in part because it believed the content of the email was “significantly different” from the way the resident usually spoke which gave rise to a more immediate concern for her wellbeing and safety. The resident stated that this characterisation of the email was “very selective” given it specifically set out that, while she had been highly distressed immediately after the phone call, a staff member had then calmed her down which indicated she was not at risk at the time of writing the email. This was communicated to the landlord in the email, and the resident stated that she did not write or imply that she wanted to kill herself.
The landlord’s internal notes following the escalation request noted its view that the complaint should be upheld, and that the difficulty and sensitivity of the case be noted. It set out that the resident had advised the landlord on a number of occasions that the landlord made her want to kill herself, which was difficult to manage and caused anxiety for staff. Although it was noted that the issue fell outside the technical remit of safeguarding, it needed to implement the policy here given what was considered an immediate danger to the resident’s life. It also stated that the internal policy could be reviewed to include more guidance and assistance for staff to manage complex mental health needs.
On 30 July 2019 the landlord’s internal review of the call noted its findings having reviewed the call:
1. The situation was extremely complex requiring specialist staff training and potentially senior management decisions about the best approach to take. The staff member had not been rude and was thought to have been calm and respectful overall, though there were some instances when they could have continued to let the resident speak.
2. In hindsight the telephone call was “probably” not the best approach. It noted that it seemed unlikely the staff member had called to save having to write an email, particularly if they knew the call would be challenging. It seemed more likely that the choice to call was made as a courtesy to the resident to provide an update. It noted that the staff member had taken the course of action that it felt was best at the time, seeming more logical to call the police after the email than it did right after the call.
3. It noted that mental health was a big issue for staff, that support was needed for them and that it might need employed specialists to assist with particularly serious cases.
On 8 August 2019 the landlord provided its final complaint response in response to each of the issues the resident had raised:
1. The landlord thanked the resident for providing it with a copy of the 31 January 2019 call. It noted the staff members reviewing the complaint had listened to the recording and reviewed the transcript. It upheld the complaint on the basis that the recording should have been listened to prior to the stage one complaint response, stating that although this would not have changed the outcome of the response, it should have reviewed all information provided. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered the resident £30 compensation.
2. The landlord accepted that the telephone contact was outside of what had been noted in the resident’s contact agreement. It noted that it understood and appreciated the reasons that the staff member had made contact over the phone, but that it should have checked with the resident that she was happy to continue with the call before proceeding. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered the resident £30 compensation.
3. Regarding the decision to initiate its safeguarding procedure and having reviewed the call recording, the landlord noted it was “a very challenging discussion” and that the resident’s behaviour was “not acceptable.” It noted it had spoken with the resident a number of times during the year and attended a meeting with the resident’s doctor and mental health support team so it was aware of some of her medical conditions. While it was seeking to support her, it also noted that it expected residents to speak to staff in an “appropriate manner”.
4. It noted that the review of the call and the emails demonstrated that the staff member was “genuinely concerned” for the resident’s safety and welfare. Its position was that, while the staff member could tell the resident was “upset and distressed” following the conversation, it wasn’t until the email was received that it became concerned there was a “serious risk” the resident would come to harm. It acknowledged however that it could do more to support its staff with understanding complex mental health needs and this was something it was reviewing.
5. The landlord agreed that it had not always carried out the commitments made to her nor responded in a timely manner in some instances. It apologised for this. The staff member who had taken the phone call and made the safeguarding referral had been brought in to manage the case due to the complexity involved and time needed to resolve the issue. It noted this staff member had responded to the complaint queries on time but that this had not always been the case. On this basis the landlord offered the resident an additional £100 for distress and inconvenience.
6. It also confirmed that the reason a different member of staff had not been brought in to assist with the case until a latter date was because that particular person had been working on another case and was not available. It had four floating housing officers who were able to work on complex situations such as the one in this case. Due to the relationship breakdown between the original staff member, this new individual had the case reassigned to them.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s safeguarding policy sets out:
1. All staff are required to report any safeguarding concerns they have as soon as they arise. It reports concerns on its internal safeguarding reporting systems and to the local authority via its referral process.
2. If it considers a criminal offence has occurred, or the customer faces an imminent risk, it will notify the police immediately. If it has concerns about the immediate health and welfare of a customer in relation to a safeguarding matter, it will notify the emergency services and local authority as soon as possible.
3. It ensures that an adult’s wellbeing is promoted when reporting and responding to safeguarding concerns, having regards to their views, wishes, feelings and beliefs in deciding on any action and supporting them to share their views with other agencies.
4. It only accepts consent to share information with other agencies if it is freely given, informed and not inferred or provided under duress. If consent is refused, information is only shared in the following circumstances:
  1. There is a need to safeguard a person/people at risk
  2. There is a significant risk of harm to self or others
The landlord’s complaint-handling process notes that:
1. A stage one complaint will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within ten working days.
2. An escalation request should be made within 20 working days from the date of the stage one response. The final response should be provided within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to contact the resident by telephone

The resident expressed concern as to why the landlord contacted her via telephone which was not in line with the contact agreement in place to send her an email once a week on a Friday. She has maintained that the landlord could have contacted her daughter instead, given her warning about the change to the arrangement for that particular interaction or properly checked whether she was willing to continue the interaction over the telephone. The landlord has explained its decision on the grounds that it felt the substantive issues raised by the resident could be better addressed via a direct communication rather than making the resident wait for a week to receive the email update.
Nevertheless, the landlord has acknowledged in its stage two investigation of the complaint that the call was “probably” not the best approach given the circumstances, even if it was done with good intentions as an attempt to assist the resident. The justification to break the contact arrangement followed by a seemingly contradictory approach in declining to answer particular enquiries however caused distress for the resident and contributed to the escalating tension in the call.
The resident has stated her belief that the landlord’s staff member chose to go against the agreed upon contact arrangements so as to save time in not having to reply to her via email. The resident’s concerns are understandable, however there is no evidence to establish the intention behind the email either way and this is not the role of the Ombudsman regardless. Ultimately, the landlord provided her with an email update following the call which was appropriate to outline the steps it intended to take next regarding her concerns about her housing circumstances.
The landlord’s position is that it understood and appreciated the reasons the staff member had chosen to contact the resident by telephone. Nevertheless, it recognised the distress and inconvenience that this decision caused to the resident, apologised to her as well and offered compensation of £30. These were appropriate actions for it to take given they acknowledged the distress caused to the resident by failing to adhere to the contact agreement, even considering the stated justification for it, and recognised the need for redress.

The conduct of the landlord’s staff on the telephone call

The resident is of the opinion that the staff member made various comments in the telephone call that should be considered inflammatory and demeaning. Some of these including the staff member pointing out the second email the resident had sent and noting at some points that this was outside of the terms of the contact agreement between the landlord and the resident. This forced the resident to defend her actions as being based on urgent medical needs and also being in line with advice she had received from another staff member when she reached out to them, being to send this second email.
The resident has also acknowledged that due to her medical condition combined with the distressing nature of the subject matter, she became aggravated and upset at various points during the call. The resident became further aggravated by what she felt was the landlord making statements that she considered outside the remit of his job, such as references to her state of mind and mental health, in particular a conversation that had previously been had with her health care professional about the possibility of the resident attending a hospital for treatment.
The landlord has acknowledged that there were some issues with the way the staff member had handled the call. The review found that the staff member spoke over the resident on some occasions, was drawn into discussions providing detail that was unnecessary which caused a negative response from the resident and would have been within their rights to terminate the call earlier to de-escalate the situation. However it also set out in its complaint-handling process that the situation was difficult and caused stress for its staff member, who it considered to generally have acted in a calm and respectful manner. Based on its discussion with the staff member and then review of the phone call at stage two of the complaint process, it came to the position that they had acted largely appropriately in responding to the resident’s questions. Nevertheless, it agreed with the resident’s position that its staff require more training on how to deal with distressed and vulnerable residents in situations such as this.
The landlord has recognised that the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s communication. To this end, it offered £100 to the resident which was an appropriate step to take given a significant part of the resident’s complaint stems from her feeling that her concerns about her wellbeing have been ignored. While stating that its staff member’s conduct was largely reasonable under difficult circumstances, it acknowledged the difficulty of the situation and that it was reviewing the training provided to staff to assist them in dealing with complex mental health needs.

Landlord’s decision regarding safeguarding

The resident has provided evidence of her medical condition which the Ombudsman understands the landlord to have also seen. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the medical evidence in the same way that a court might, it provides context for the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s safeguarding decision given the elements of her medical history that the landlord was aware of. The resident has expressed particular concern that the landlord’s decision to contact the police had the potential to result in her being handled forcibly which could have caused her inadvertent harm on account of the vulnerability she has stemming from her medical condition. Furthermore, the resident expressed concern that the record of the call-out for police will be on her police record for five to seven years, noting that the landlord should have been aware of this and given more weight to it in considering its decision.
While the resident’s privacy is of great concern to her and she was concerned about this and other potential ramifications of the police visit, the landlord’s policy emphasises the need for it to take immediate action should it become concerned for the welfare of the resident. It includes reference to considering the views and wishes of a resident in making a decision on whether to safeguard, but notes that these are overridden if there is an immediate danger.
A review of the email sent to the landlord by the resident approximately 24 hours after the telephone call demonstrates that the resident conveyed the significant distress she felt during and immediately after the call. The key quote which prompted the landlord to contact the police was the resident stating that she “was determined to leave the building…and step into the path of an oncoming car”. The resident also describes being made to feel invisible and unworthy of the landlord’s time and consideration. While the resident goes on to state in the same email that she calmed down following the immediate aftermath of the call and her discussion with the staff member on site, it is understandable that these references would have raised concerns for the landlord about her wellbeing given how specific they were in stating the nature of the potential harm.
Based on the available evidence and the points raised by the resident, it is evident that there were other options available to the landlord to attempt to contact either the resident directly by telephone, the staff member onsite or the resident’s daughter. The landlord has acknowledged that in future it will attempt to contact the resident’s daughter/carer if the circumstances are not severe. Nevertheless, the steps the landlord took were not unreasonable in the circumstances, given its policy clearly sets out that it will notify the police immediately if it has concerns about the health and welfare of a resident. Given the emotional nature of the conversation on the previous day, this context would understandably have informed the staff member’s reaction to receiving the email. It is obligated to act in accordance with its policy, and the evidence supports the position that it did so in the circumstances.
The resident has also stated that the landlord’s decision to contact the police following its receipt of the email does not align with the approach it took the previous day. She has made the point that the landlord should have raised safeguarding concerns then, rather than waiting until it received the email.
The landlord has stated that there was not an immediate concern for her wellbeing following the telephone call, which justified it electing not to instigate its safeguarding procedure at that time. This contrasts with the decision made the following day upon receipt of the resident’s email, which contained more specific language which it felt implied an immediate risk to the resident’s wellbeing.
The two decisions need to be considered separately, and the landlord’s choice immediately following the telephone call was reasonable in the circumstances given it felt the conversation had aligned with previous concerns raised by the resident which it was seeking to resolve and keep her updated regarding. Its complaint response notes that it did not consider there to be a “serious risk” until it received the email, though acknowledging the resident had been upset and distressed the previous day. It made reference to evidence it had received previously from her support team regarding her mental health needs and that its decisions in both instances had been informed by this evidence, which was an appropriate approach to take. Nevertheless, the differing opinions of the resident and landlord regarding the very serious topic which has the potential for serious ramifications indicate the need for the landlord’s staff to have further training on the issue. I will therefore make a recommendation to this end.

Complaint-handling

The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the complaint investigation process. A significant part of this dissatisfaction stems from the landlord’s decision not to listen to the recording of the call between the resident and the staff member on 31 January 2019, prior to the stage one complaint response being issued. The complaint emerged as a result of the communication between the two parties, and both the email to the landlord on 1 February 2019 and the official complaint pointed out multiple concerns the resident had about the staff member’s conduct on the phone. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to listen to the recording of the phone call when considering the complaint, and the failure to do so was an inappropriate approach to take to the complaint in the circumstances.
The landlord has acknowledged that this failing occurred during stage one of the complaint investigation process, stating that it should have reviewed all information provided by the resident as part of the process. In response, it has apologised and offered compensation to the resident of £30. Furthermore, it addressed the substantive issue in its investigation of the complaint at stage two. The evidence demonstrates that following the escalation request, multiple staff members carried out a close review of the telephone call recording. These were appropriate steps to take in response to the complaint and demonstrated a learning from the earlier service failure.
While the resident does not accept that the landlord would have arrived at the position taken in the stage one response had the phone call been listened to prior to this, the landlord has stated that the decision made no difference to the substantive outcome. It stated that the behaviour of the staff member during the call did not amount to a service failure. Nevertheless, it has acknowledged the distress caused to the resident by the emotional phone call, apologised and provided redress. It also acted prudently in electing to change the resident’s point of contact with it by the time at which the complaint process concluded.
The landlord responded to both the complaint and the escalation request within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s position that it had “responded to her queries on time”, however this comment by the landlord was made in the context of the complaint response and seemingly refers to its complaint-handling deadlines for formal responses which it has met.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its decision to call the resident.

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the conduct of its staff.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding its decision to implement its safeguarding procedure.

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its complaint-handling.

Reasons

The telephone call represented a departure from the agreed contact arrangements by the landlord. While it has explained its justification for making the call, the call caused significant distress to the resident and the decision was made without her consent or input. The landlord has acknowledged that it should have ascertained consent from the resident prior to proceeding with the call, apologised and offered compensation to the resident which was appropriate in the circumstances.

The telephone call between the resident and the landlord was a difficult one that eventually became heated. While there were steps the landlord could have taken to better manage the situation and engage with the resident’s concerns, the circumstances of the call put pressure on the staff member which contributed to the distress experienced by the resident. The landlord has acknowledged the shortcomings of its handling of the call and conduct towards the resident. It has apologised to her, offered compensation and acknowledged the need for further training on how to deal with such situations in future.

The landlord’s safeguarding policy requires the landlord to act as it did should there be an immediate concern for a resident’s wellbeing. The email to the landlord which referenced the distress of the resident following the telephone call gave rise to a reasonable concern for the landlord that the resident was in a situation of immediate danger. Though the resident has explained that this was distinguished from her state of mind at the time of writing the email, the landlord largely acted in line with its safeguarding policy to promptly alert the authorities given the wording of its policy.

The landlord failed to undertake a review of the telephone call at stage one of its complaints process. This was not appropriate given the complaint largely rested on the actions of its staff member during and as a result of the content of the call. The landlord recognised this failing, apologised and carried out a review of the call recording and transcript at stage two of its complaint process. It also offered appropriate compensation to the resident as redress.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendations:

That the landlord, within the next four weeks, pay to the resident its original offer of:
1. £30 for its failure to adhere to the agreed contact arrangement
2. £100 for the failure of its staff to handle the call appropriately
3. £30 for the failures in its complaint-handling process, specifically the failure to listen to review the subject telephone call prior to providing the stage one response.

That the landlord implement staff training on how to deal with vulnerable residents with mental health concerns, so as to be able to better respond to similar scenarios that give rise to safeguarding concerns in future.

The finding of reasonable redress is contingent on the first recommendation being implemented. The landlord should advise the Ombudsman if and when it has implemented these recommendations, and should do so within the next four weeks. However the Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the second recommendation will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.