Places for People Group Limited (202212323)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212323

Places for People Group Limited

23 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Staff conduct.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bed flat with his partner under an assured tenancy which began on 24 November 2014. The resident lives in a supported living scheme with other residents. Within the block there are communal facilities including a lounge, library, laundry, and kitchen for use by all residents.
The resident has COPD, and the landlord was made aware during the course of this complaint that he had attended his GP for mental health concerns. The resident has told this Service that the complaint has had impacted his own and his partner’s physical and mental health, requiring them to take medications.
The complaint centres around a longstanding series of allegations and counter-allegations between the resident and the Health and Wellbeing Coordinator (commonly referred to as ‘the warden’) who was responsible for providing support within the scheme. Alongside this, the resident said that the landlord missed several earlier complaints and did not progress these in line with its policy, leading to further delays, distress, and inconvenience.
The resident raised several formal complaints to the landlord. The evidence suggests that the earliest of these was in March 2022. Further formal complaints were made on 8 September 2022, 10 December 2022, and 12 December 2022. The complaints raised several incidents between the resident and the warden including allegations that the warden had:
1. Assaulted the resident on several occasions.
2. Not reported or taken action against other residents who had bullied and assaulted the resident when he had reported this to them.
3. Allowed their partner to have inappropriate access to the property’s keys and to offer private handyman services to particular residents.
4. Spoken with other residents about confidential matters to attempt to isolate the resident.
5. Made false allegations about the resident.
6. Failed to intervene in incidents that they had witnessed where other residents had been abusive to the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2023 in which it said:
1. It had dealt with all antisocial behaviour incidents related to the resident in accordance with its policy, particularly around banning the resident from using the communal lounge. It noted that it had offered mediation and an acceptable behaviour agreement which the resident had declined.
2. It could not see any previous formal complaints on its systems before the complaint made on 10 and 12 December 2022. It said it would remind staff to log all complaints, even if they were resolved immediately.
3. It agreed that there had been a delay in undertaking mediation due to staff availability and COVID-19.
4. There was no issue with residents from the scheme being invited to attend the warden’s wedding.
5. It had addressed the warden recording the resident through an “internal process” and had provided the resident with an alternative point of contact.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 February 2023 as he felt that some issues had not been addressed and others had not been dealt with professionally. This included:
1. That the full scope of inappropriate behaviour by the warden and their partner had not been addressed.
2. That the resident had been banned from using the communal lounge for a long period of time without justification.
3. There were several complaints raised prior to December 2022 which the landlord had not acknowledged or actioned.
4. The resident requesting that CCTV be installed in the communal lounge with sound recording to ensure that he felt safe to use the space.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 June 2023, in which it said:
1. The warden had been subject to disciplinary action and was no longer employed by the landlord. It apologised to the resident in person and in writing for the “avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, and an unfair impact on [the resident] as a result of the service failure.”
2. The warden’s partner had been banned from attending the premises.
3. It had taken steps to streamline its complaint handling processes to avoid complaints being missed in future.
4. It was planning a national CCTV upgrade and had requested that the resident’s building be prioritised for this work when it began.
5. It had lifted the ban on the resident using the communal lounge and would facilitate staff attending with the resident to assist with reintegrating him with the other residents on the premises.
6. It offered £2,000 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience of the longstanding issues with the warden.
  2. £250 for failing to acknowledge and action previous complaints in line with its policy.
  3. £250 for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 June 2023 seeking improvements to the landlord’s processes and for it to be held accountable for the incidents with its staff. The resident was also seeking for some of the residents involved in the incidents to be held accountable for their actions.

Assessment and findings

Staff conduct

It is not disputed by either party that there was a longstanding issue between the resident and the warden for the scheme in which he lives. Between March 2022 and June 2023, the evidence shows a series of allegations and counter-allegations between the resident and the warden.
This culminated in an incident on 22 March 2023, in which the resident recorded the warden being verbally abusive and submitted this to the landlord for consideration. The landlord suspended the warden the same day and took disciplinary action which resulted in her employment being terminated.
The evidence shows that the allegations were made against the warden for a period of around 1 year prior to this. The landlord was entitled to and required to act on the information that it had available to it at the time. The evidence shows that it considered the resident’s reports and had previously discussed alleged poor conduct with the warden. The Ombudsman appreciates that the ongoing situation was very challenging for the resident, who has told this Service that it impacted his physical and mental health.
In its stage 2 complaint response, following the dismissal of the staff member for misconduct, the landlord acknowledged, apologised, and paid compensation for “avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, and an unfair impact on you as a result of the service failure” related to the warden’s conduct.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to fully investigate any concerns raised by residents about the conduct of its staff in a timely and effective way, in line with its own policies. Additionally, landlords should consider other mitigating factors which might improve the situation or enable evidence to be obtained.
The Ombudsman considers in this case that the landlord acted reasonably in taking these steps, based on the information and evidence that it had available to it at the time. This is because it took the following action in response to the resident’s concerns prior to the last incident, which resulted in the warden being dismissed:
1. It investigated complaint and reports from the resident in a timely manner. It is acknowledged that many of these responses were inconclusive due to a lack of evidence or independent verification from neutral third parties. While this would have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord did respond to concerns, having reviewed the available evidence (often CCTV) and provide an outcome.
2. It made a safeguarding referral when it was notified that the resident’s mental health had deteriorated in response to the ongoing situation.
3. It offered mediation between the resident and warden, and between the resident and other residents living within the scheme. The landlord’s records indicate that this was not successful at resolving the issues.
4. It provided timely clarification on specific policies and queries raised by the resident. For example, it wrote to the resident to clarify its policy around use of the TV remote in the communal areas when this was queried.
5. It provided an alternative point of contact for the resident when concerns were raised regarding the warden. At points within this complaint process this included weekly welfare contact.
When the resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman, one of the outcomes that he was seeking was for other residents who were involved in the various incidents to be held accountable for their actions. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over other residents living near to the resident and this is not an outcome that we could provide. The resident should continue to report matters related to other residents to the landlord, police, or other relevant agencies if these problems are ongoing.
The evidence shows that the landlord took the following steps to provide redress to the resident for the failings that it identified:
1. It apologised in person and in writing to the resident. The landlord notes that the resident considered that he felt this apology was “genuine”.
2. It took disciplinary action against the warden, resulting in the termination of her employment.
3. It lifted the resident’s ban on using the communal lounge.
4. The warden’s husband was banned from attending the site.
5. It offered £1,500 compensation for “avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment and an unfair impact on [the resident] as a result of the service failure” and the “inappropriate behaviour you have been subjected to by the former Health & Wellbeing co Ordinator [sic] […] and her husband.”
6. It committed to upgrading the CCTV in the communal areas as part of a national upgrade and had requested that the resident’s property be prioritised for this upgrade when it began.
7. It attended the property with the resident to assist with his reintegration with other residents using the shared facilities. It is noted that these meetings were booked and staffed by the landlord however they were of limited success due to other residents not attending.
At the time of investigation, the resident noted that the CCTV upgrade was outstanding and that several areas of the property were not yet covered adequately by CCTV. The resident also said that there had been no communication regarding progress with this. While the landlord is under no legal obligation to install CCTV, it did commit to this action in its stage 2 complaint response in June 2023. There has been no evidence provided that this action has been completed and therefore the landlord is recommended to provide an update on this to the resident.
Having considered these actions alongside the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily as it surpasses any order that the Ombudsman may seek to make in this case.
The landlord should continue to provide support to the resident to assist him with reintegrating with the residents and enjoying the use of the communal spaces. Additionally, the landlord should provide the resident with an update on the installation of the upgraded CCTV, including a schedule of works showing when this will be completed.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy where it commits to issuing responses in the following timescales:
1. Within 10 working days at stage 1.
2. Within 20 working days at stage 2.
Additionally, the landlord has an informal complaint stage called “on-the-spot”, which aims to rectify complaints within 24 hours of them being raised. It is unclear from the landlord’s policy whether this would be logged as a complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out several key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must operate a 2-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
2. Landlord must raise a complaint when residents express dissatisfaction with a service. It is noted that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such.
3. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
4. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
The evidence shows that the resident raised multiple complaints regarding the conduct of the warden and other residents. Many of these complaints included the wording “formal complaint”; however, these were not logged or responded to as formal complaints by the landlord. On one occasion in December 2022, the landlord responded to a document entitled ‘formal complaint’ with an email response but did not log this as a complaint.
The Code requires landlord to progress all complaints where dissatisfaction is noted and to log, investigation and provide an outcome appropriately. The landlord failed to do this on numerous occasions with this complaint and this was a failing. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this failing in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £250 compensation in respect of this.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued over 11 months after the first complaint was lodged by the resident. Its stage 2 complaint response was issued after 95 working days. It is acknowledged that the landlord agreed with the resident to extend the deadline for its stage 2 response until the end of May 2023; however, the response was still issued 18 working days over this revised deadline. This was a further failing by the landlord to comply with its own complaints policy and the requirements of the Code. The landlord apologised for these delays in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £250 compensation in respect of this.
In addition to the apologies and compensation outlined above, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response indicated that it had also reviewed its internal working practices to make it more “streamlined” and to ensure that all complaints were logged and actioned in a timely way.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord took the following steps to offer redress to the resident for the failing identified above:
1. Apologised in person.
2. Apologised in writing within its stage 2 complaint response.
3. Took action to improve its complaint procedures to ensure that future complaints are logged and actioned correctly.
4. It offered £250 compensation for the service failures in not identifying complaints earlier.
5. It offered £250 compensation for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
Taking these factors together, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord should pay the compensation it has previously offered, if it has not already done so and ensure that any future complaints from the resident are logged and responded to within the timescales in its policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
1. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
2. The resident’s concerns about complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the £2,000 compensation previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so.
2. Continue to provide support to the resident to assist him with reintegrating with other residents and enjoying the use of the communal lounge spaces.
3. Provide the resident with an update, including a schedule of works, showing when the upgraded CCTV will be installed in the building and use its best endeavours to progress this in a timely manner.