A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202412695)

Background

1. The resident resides in a 2-bedroom flat. He raised various concerns to the landlord about the management of the block from August 2023 to December 2023. The landlord restricted contact with the resident on 12 January 2024. The resident has mental health issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to restrict contact with the resident.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s
   • Decision to restrict contact with the resident.
   • Handling of the associated complaints.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to inform the resident that he could appeal its decision to restrict contact with him.
6. The landlord did not request an extension when responding to the stage 2 complaint or apologise to the resident the for the delay.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord’s Unacceptable Actions by Complainants policy states:
   • All complainants have the right to be heard, understood and respected and its staff have the same rights.
   • The landlord retains the right to restrict or change access to its services where it considers complainant actions to be unacceptable (rude, offensive, demanding or persistent). This will be reviewed every 3 months.
   • A complainant can appeal a decision to restrict contact.
8. In line with its policy the SHM advised the resident that he was expected to communicate in a respectful and courteous manner when making contact. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration regarding his concerns about the management of the block. This is noted in the landlord’s initial warning in August 2023 where it advised the resident of its concerns about his correspondence. It was also appropriate that the SHM gave the resident an opportunity to raise further concerns at a meeting it arranged for later that month.
9. Despite the landlord’s concerns about the tone and repetitive nature of some of the resident’s emails, it has demonstrated that, from the evidence provided, it sought to address his concerns about housing issues. An example is its responses to the resident’s concerns in October and November 2023 about scaffolding erected at the block. The landlord corresponded actively with the resident and tried to provide answers to the enquiries he raised. It was also appropriate that the landlord gave the resident a further opportunity (in November 2023) to change his behaviour by warning him regarding his comments against a staff member.
10. The landlord followed its Unacceptable Actions by Complainants policy when restricting contact with the resident on 12 January 2024. Its letter outlined the reasons for its decision, and it provided examples of the behaviour it considered unacceptable. The letter also set out the restrictions imposed. However, we have not seen evidence the landlord informed the resident of his right to an appeal of the restriction, as per its policy. The landlord also missed an opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns (raised the same day) that he was being stopped from making contact. He expressed frustration at being prevented from raising issues. This was a failing on the landlord’s part.
11. The landlord committed to its agreement to respond weekly to the resident’s enquiries, and it reviewed the restriction every 3 months in line with its policy. It also removed the restrictions accordingly when it observed the resident had complied with the conditions it imposed.
12. We note the resident’s concerns that the restrictions prevented him from raising complaints. However, the evidence indicates the landlord continued to address his concerns regarding the management of the block. This is noted from the resident’s email of 21 February 2024 where he referenced the landlord’s response to his complaint about the cleaning of the car park.
13. The landlord addressed the resident’s complaints (raised at a later date) that he felt threatened, bullied, harassed, and humiliated by the SHM due to their communications about his contact. The landlord explained it found no evidence of the allegations made and it was not their intention to cause him any distress.
14. We acknowledge from the evidence seen that the resident is vulnerable and that he felt the need to continually contact the landlord about the management of their block. However, the landlord has a duty to manage contact with the resident to ensure his concerns were being reasonably addressed. This was in line with its policy commitment to manage its resources and to ensure that other complainants and its staff were not adversely impacted by contacts it deemed unreasonable.
15. Regardless, we have found service failure because the landlord failed to advise the resident of his right to appeal the decision throughout the period of the restriction (from January to June 2024). It had since imposed further restrictions but the notification letter to the resident excluded this information. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
16. We have not considered the resident’s complaint a fire door in the block, parking issues and his concerns that the landlord had threatened to evict him. We have advised him that these matters will be investigated by us separately.

17. The landlord’s complaints handling policy has 2 stages. It would aim to:
    • Acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt.
    • Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    • Inform the resident and request an extension where it anticipates delays..
18. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within the timescales in its complaints policy. However, the stage 2 response was slightly delayed. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 2 working days (30 July 2024) but it did not respond until 3 September 2024. We note the stage 2 letter was dated 27 August 2024 but it was sent later. This was 25 working days following its acknowledgement of the complaint.
19. While we have not seen evidence of a significant detriment to the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to request an extension when responding to the complaint at stage 1. The landlord has not demonstrated it did so in line with its complaints policy. It also failed to acknowledge the delay in its response or apologise for it. This was not appropriate. To address this, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Communication

20. The landlord maintained a neutral and professional tone in its communications with the resident, despite its concerns about his expressions in various emails towards at its staff.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord has demonstrated good practices in its record keeping. It provided the relevant information such as records of communication with the resident.