Concept Housing Association CIC (202224363)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202224363
Concept Housing Association CIC
25 September 2024
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 reports that he was harassed by his neighbour.
- the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and a lack of safeguarding provision.
- the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about theft from his room.
- the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
Background
- The resident held a licence agreement with the landlord between January and August 2021. The property was a 6 bedroom house for multiple occupancy (HMO). Each resident occupied a single room with shared communal areas. The landlord owns the property, but the housing management is undertaken on its behalf by a managing agent. The landlord’s records show that the resident suffers from mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression.
- An incident took place on 20 August 2021 in which it was alleged the resident had used a knife to attack his neighbour. The resident was arrested by the police, who informed the managing agent that he could not be released back to the address. He later received a custodial sentence and the landlord terminated the licence agreement.
- On 14 October 2022 the resident made a complaint. He referred to the incident in August 2021 and said the landlord had failed to safeguard him. He said:
- he had been imprisoned for 2 months and placed on tag for something he did not do. He was the one who had been harassed by his neighbour, not the other way around.
- a support worker for the managing agent had witnessed an incident in which he had received a death threat, but did not do anything to investigate his claims he was the victim. He felt this was because the support worker had a personal relationship with his neighbour.
- the managing agent had knowingly allowed a visitor to stay in his neighbour’s room on a permanent basis, putting them in breach of their licence conditions.
- on the day of his arrest, he realised he had dropped his keys. When his family later came to the property to collect his belongings, personal items were missing including his laptop.
- The managing agent responded to the resident on 17 October 2022. It said that in accordance with its complaint policy, it would not investigate matters that were older than 6 months old. It explained that:
- the neighbour he had referred to had since left the property. The support worker employed at the time had also left the business.
- it had seen no other evidence to support his claims. This included no evidence to support that he was being harassed by his neighbour.
- The resident responded to say that he felt the response was “not good enough” and as a result of the managing agent’s shortcomings, he had been “falsely accused” of something he did not do.
- There was some confusion about whether the landlord or the managing agent should respond further to the resident’s complaint. On 21 February 2023 the Ombudsman intervened and explained that although the complaint was out of time in accordance with the landlord’s policy, it should be considered as an exemption because the matter related to a safeguarding issue.
- On 28 April 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a final response. It said that:
- he was correct that the licence agreement would not permit a resident to have a visitor in their room on a permanent basis. Although there was no evidence to support his claims about his neighbour, it agreed that it should still have been investigated by the managing agent at the time. Without evidence to support whether or not it did this, it would ensure that the terms of licence were reinforced at the point of new sign ups.
- it had found no record of any concerns he had made about his support worker at the time he was living at the property. It had robust safeguarding measures in place to protect residents through its policy, and refresher training was currently in progress. It wanted to assure him that it had a provider performance framework in place to audit the quality of the support provided by the managing agent.
- if he felt that items had been stolen from his property, then this was a criminal offence which would be dealt with by the police.
- it could see that there had been a failure to manage his complaint effectively. He was given conflicting information about who would investigate his complaint, and its message about when he could refer the matter to the Ombudsman was unclear.
- as a result of his complaint, it was reviewing its complaint policy and would ensure that its communication about which organisation handled complaints at each stage was clear. It wanted to offer him £200 for the delays he had experienced in concluding his complaint.
- In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident advised that he feels that the landlord should have taken more affirmative action against his neighbour. As a resolution to his complaint, he is seeking further compensation for his experience.
Assessment and findings
Jurisdiction
- What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
- Paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
- On 21 August 2021 the resident was arrested following an incident involving an altercation with his neighbour. The police interviewed witnesses and confirmed that he could not return to the property because of the risk posed to the victim. The resident made counter allegations against his neighbour. The matter was considered in court and the resident received a custodial sentence for the offence of wounding with intent.
- As a result, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that he was harassed by his neighbour.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and a lack of safeguarding provision.
- The landlord’s records demonstrate that on 11 October 2021 the managing agent assisted the resident to retrieve items from his room before leaving the property, having been evicted. During this visit, the resident expressed he had been unfairly treated by the police. The resident was given advice to escalate his concerns as a police matter, which was appropriate. There is no evidence that the resident raised that he was unhappy with the service provided by the managing agent at this time.
- It was not until March 2022 that the resident sent a text message to the managing agent to say he was making a complaint about the lack of care he had received. This was the first time the managing agent became aware that he was unhappy with its service. It tried to discuss his concerns in more detail, but notes from this time recorded that the resident became abusive before terminating the call. This hindered the managing agent’s ability to obtain a full understanding of his concerns.
- The resident later made a formal complaint on 14 October 2022. Records show that the managing agent contacted the resident 3 days later, which was appropriate. It explained it could see no evidence in its records to support his claims and was unable to explore his concerns further as both the neighbour and the staff member had since left the property and the business. The response was reasonable and helped manage the resident’s expectations.
- When the resident explained that he remained unhappy with the response, records show that the managing agent contacted the resident on 9 November and 14 December 2022 to discuss his concerns further. During these conversations the resident continued to allege that it had failed to act on his reports that 2 neighbours were sharing a room, putting them in breach of their licence agreement. In response, the managing agent explained that it could not discuss circumstances related to the licence agreements of other individuals for data protection reasons, which was reasonable.
- It was noted that during both telephone calls, as the managing agent tried to explain its stance of what it had done to investigate his concerns, the resident became abusive and the calls were terminated. This again hampered the managing agent’s ability to engage with him about his concerns.
- The managing agent sent the resident a formal complaint response on 27 February 2023 reiterating that it was willing to investigate his concerns about a lack of safeguarding by its staff, however he had not provided any evidence to support his claims. It made an offer to meet the resident in his new property to see how he was settling into his new home, and to ensure it was happy with its current service. The response was fair and reasonable.
- The landlord later wrote to the resident with a final response on 28 April 2023. It reiterated the earlier information given to the resident by the managing agent, and explained that it had reviewed its records but could not see that he reported any concerns around the time the incidents happened. It assured him that it was committed to protecting its residents through its safeguarding process and refresher training for staff was in progress. It also explained that it had a robust provider performance framework in place to audit the quality of support that was being provided by the managing agent.
- Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and a lack of safeguarding. There is no evidence which demonstrates that the resident brought to the landlord’s attention his concerns about staffing during the time he was tenant at the property. In response to his complaint, the landlord demonstrated strong partnership working with the managing agent, and reviewed all of the information related to the time he was a tenant. As a result, its response to the resident was measured and fair.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about theft from his room.
- In making his complaint, the resident alleged that whilst he was in police custody, a theft occurred and items to the value of £1,000 were stolen from his room. There is no evidence that the resident reported the missing items after he left the property in around August 2021 until he brought his complaint in October 2022. This hindered the managing agent’s ability to investigate matters within good time.
- In its response to the resident, both the managing agent and the landlord clarified that theft was a criminal matter and he would need to refer his concerns to the police. It was also explained that he could have also made a claim on his home contents insurance. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to his concerns about theft from his room and he was given the appropriate advice.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint
- The service level agreement between the landlord and the managing agent explains that there should be a clear complaints process in place which defines the roles of the two organisations. In essence, the managing agent should respond to the resident at stage 1 of the process and if the resident is dissatisfied the matter can be referred to the landlord for a final response.
- In this case, there was some confusion between the landlord and the managing agent as to who should respond to the resident’s complaint at each stage. As a result, the resident was provided incorrect advice as to when he could approach the Ombudsman. He was also misinformed that the landlord was not responsible for investigating his complaint. The confusion over who would manage the resident’s concerns led to delays in responding to him, causing him frustration, time and trouble.
- The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will accept all complaints unless there is a valid reason not to do so and lists a number of exemptions consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). In response to the resident’s complaint in October 2022, the landlord was correct in stating that the matter he was complaining about happened over 6 months prior. However it failed to recognise that because his concerns related to safeguarding matters, they could still be considered despite the amount of time that had passed.
- As a result, the Ombudsman had to intervene and an explanation as to why the landlord should consider the complaint was sent on 21 February 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, a response should have followed 20 working day later. However, it was delayed and a final response was not issued for 47 working days, causing the resident frustration and inconvenience.
- In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles “Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes” as well as our own guidance on remedies.
- In this case, the landlord’s final response recognised the confusion it had caused in relation to which organisation would manage the resident’s complaint. It apologised to the resident and offered him £200 for the time and trouble caused to him, which was proportionate to its failures and sufficient to put matters right. Furthermore, it took learning from the resident’s experience and provided assurances that its complaint policy had been reviewed to ensure that there were no similar shortcomings in the future, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 42.e. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that he was harassed by his neighbour is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and a lack of safeguarding provision.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about theft from his room.
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.
Recommendations
- It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £200 it offered him on 28 April 2023 if not already paid.