High Peak Borough Council (202205626)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205626

High Peak Borough Council

4 April 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s decision to send a letter to the resident about his behaviour and handling of the associated complaint.
2. The landlord’s introduction of a contact arrangement for the resident.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property from 16 March 2020. He moved into the property by way of a mutual exchange, and was previously a tenant of the same landlord.
The resident is disabled and has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The tenancy agreement was updated and effective from 6 April 2021. The tenancy agreement states:
1. You, your family, lodgers, visitors to your home or anyone acting on your behalf must not be violent, threatening, intimidating or aggressive towards our employees, contractors, agents or elected members at any time and at any location. This includes sending or making offensive comments or calls, or posting threatening, abusive or insulting comments online or on social media or encouraging any other person to do so.
2. If you do not keep to any part of this agreement, we will investigate and will usually give you a chance to sort out the problem. If you continue to break the conditions of your tenancy agreement, despite warnings or if the problem is very serious, we will take legal action against you. This may involve giving you a notice that will end your tenancy.
3. The tenants’ handbook provides further information about what will happen if residents breach the terms of the tenancy agreement. It states that if it receives an allegation that a tenancy condition has been broken a housing officer will get in contact and the resident will usually be given the opportunity to put things right. It then goes on to state that if a resident continues to break the tenancy conditions, it will consider taking further action.
The anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy states amongst other things:
1. The tenants’ handbook and tenancy agreement defines the tenant’s rights and responsibilities with regard to anti-social behaviour (ASB) and harassment.
2. The landlord will treat all complaints of ASB and harassment seriously and investigate them promptly in a sympathetic, firm and impartial manner.
3. The landlord will take account of the needs of vulnerable tenants and those with sensory or physical disabilities when managing cases of ASB and harassment.
4. That it will ensure all new and existing tenants are made aware of their tenancy obligations in terms of ASB and harassment.
As the landlord is part of a local authority it uses a generic complaints procedure. The complaints, compliments and comments procedure has a two stage process. At stage one the complaint will be acknowledged within three days of receipt, and resolved within 15 days. Where a customer is dissatisfied with the action taken at stage one the matter will be raised with the executive director or head of service with responsibility for the service concerned. All complaints at this stage will be acknowledged in three days and resolved in 20 days. As a final option a customer will be directed to the appropriate complaint handling service.
The procedure also states that it has adopted the local government and social care ombudsman (LGSCO) guidance in relation to unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complaints. This guidance provides some examples of what could be considered as unreasonable actions or behaviours. It states action taken should be proportionate to the nature and frequency of the complainant’s current contacts. It also outlines some options of actions that could be adopted. This includes limiting the complainant to one medium of contact (telephone, letter, email etc). A link to the full guidance is contained within the complaints procedure.

Summary of events

The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 May 2022 in relation to comments he made on a public social media page about the housing officer. It stated that it felt the comments made were of an offensive nature and said they should be removed. It considered this to be a breach of tenancy and advised further issues would lead to further action, reminding the resident of the terms of the tenancy agreement. It said the resident could contact the landlord if he wished to discuss this further.
The resident then made a complaint about the letter and its contents. He stated that the comments made were in a private forum to discuss what he considered to be the “shortcomings” of an officer. He said the communications were not ‘violent, threatening or intimidating’, nor directed towards staff. He said he disagreed with the contents of the letter, and was disappointed that the landlord did not see these comments as feedback, and instead misquoted and threatened him. He said he would take legal action against the landlord for breach of contract and introduced a fee schedule for doing so.
There are then several emails between the resident and landlord after he asks for email addresses of specific officers. The landlord stated it would not do this. It said it would try to resolve the query or forward it to the relevant service area.
The stage one response was sent 18 May 2022. The landlord explained the social media comments were brought to its attention from colleagues, an elected member, and staff from other agencies who felt the post was offensive and insulting. They advised that this was not an isolated incident and had written to the tenant in the previous year along similar lines.
In the same letter the landlord advised that on 16 May 2022 the resident spoke to a customer service advisor where the call was terminated. They said his behaviour on the call was aggressive and intimidating. He then sent emails that referred to customer service staff in derogatory terms. As a result of this and in order to safeguard the wellbeing of staff, the landlord advised the customer that he should direct future service requests to a specific email address, which would be dealt with or forwarded to the correct team. The resident was asked to only call in an emergency.
The resident immediately asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to the second stage of its process. He said:
1. He was dissatisfied with the response and found it unprofessional.
2. The landlord’s claims that he breached the terms of the tenancy agreement were unproven and disputed.
3. He was quoting others when he used specific derogatory terms.
4. The landlord was telling lies and threatening a disabled man and his family with homelessness, all because he was trying to raise standards.
The landlord acknowledged the letter and advised who would be dealing with the complaint, and when he could expect a response. It then provided further information about the officer in response to the resident’s query about who would be dealing with the complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident on 1 June 2022. It stated the complaint had been reviewed and that it was handled appropriately. The letter reminded the resident of the tenancy agreement, notably tenants’ behaviour towards staff. It advised the contact arrangement would be reviewed in 3 months time. It also advised the resident he could approach the Ombudsman for independent review if he was not satisfied with the final response.
The next day the resident requested his complaint is escalated to Stage 3 of the process. He said he wanted to meet with the chief executive officer to discuss what he deemed to be threats to a disabled person. He said the landlord had made false statements and that he would seek legal redress. He said he wanted staff members to face disciplinary action as they were using their position to assert falsehoods, harass him and leave him at a disadvantage. He said the comments he made were nothing more than a gripe to a friend. The resident again stated he would be introducing a fee schedule in order to make legal representations. He copied in the elected official and said he would also write to the MP.
The landlord explained that the resident had exhausted the complaints process and that changes to its complaints policy were made in 2018 to remove the third stage. However, the officer agreed to meet with the resident at his request to discuss the complaint further and try to understand how his disability and PTSD affected his behaviour. They also provided information to the resident about escalating the complaint to this service as an alternative, or in addition to the meeting.
The resident turned down the offer of a meeting stating it would be pointless and opted to escalate the complaint to this service. In his contact to this service the resident advised that he wanted the landlord to recognise that his comments were misquoted, but that even at face value were not violent, threatening or intimidating towards staff. He advised the complaints handling was an exercise in backing colleagues up. He said he wanted staff to be disciplined and look as his comments as an opportunity for feedback.
On the day the complaint was escalated to this service the resident again requested a meeting with the chief executive officer of the local authority. He advised that if the matter was not resolved he would take legal action against two officers as they had acted illegally and broken the law. He said he had obtained the personal home addresses of the officers for this purpose.
The resident then appears to complain to the local authority about the handling of a call and unacceptable call wait times.
On 29 July 2022 the resident is sent a letter from a solicitor acting on behalf of the local authority including the landlord. The letter advised that further incidents about the resident’s behaviour had been reported. It advised it does not tolerate abusive or intimidatory behaviour and said that this was a breach of the tenancy agreement. It stated that if the behaviour continued action may be taken, and this would put his tenancy at risk. It reiterated the arrangements regarding contact. It said it was aware the resident has PTSD, but did not know how this affects his behaviour. It said it hoped by limiting future communications to emails, any upset can be avoided for the resident. The solicitor said he was happy to consider any comments about the course of action and gave the resident his direct email address.
In response to this the resident contacted the landlord stating that the letter contained allegations of an unknown event, at an unknown date and time. He then quoted the European Convention on Human Rights and formally made a subject access request.
The resident has contacted this service on several occasions since to discuss his complaint with the landlord. He said he wanted a better service, and not to be on hold for 20 minutes when he called the landlord. He states the landlord has applied illegal sanctions, breaching his human rights. He deemed the landlord’s actions to be heavy handed and said its actions were harassment, discrimination, slander, and libel. He also stated the Police were involved, but no further information was given about this. The resident has been informed of the Ombudsman’s role and remit of this service during his communications.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

Following the initial contact to this service the resident has provided correspondence with the landlord from 2015. The Ombudsman does not typically consider complaints about matters that have occurred prior to the submission of a formal complaint. Therefore, this assessment will focus on the Landlord’s actions in response to the formal complaint made by the tenant in May 2022. Any reference to historical or unrelated issues provides contextual background only in relation to the current complaint.
The resident has provided the Ombudsman with communication with the local authority in relation to council tax. This service is only able to look at complaints related to the landlord function of the local authority. Therefore, if the resident wishes to pursue this part of the complaint he will need to direct this to the LGSCO.
Throughout his correspondence with the landlord and this service the resident has stated the landlord has harassed him and discriminated against him under the Equality Act 2010. This Service cannot make any determination as to whether this took place, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice in relation to these matters.

The landlord’s decision to send a letter to the resident about his behaviour and handling of the associated complaint.

The Ombudsman is not in a position to say whether the resident has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement. Our role is to determine whether the landlord has been fair and reasonable in its actions and responses to the resident throughout the complaint.
The letter sent to the resident stated he made particular remarks within the social media post, which he said was misquoted. The Ombudsman has access to the comments, and understands why the post could have been seen as offensive. However, it appears that the officer that wrote the letter used some language that was not specifically used by the resident in the post. This created some misunderstanding and a sense of unfairness for the resident. Information provided to residents about their behaviour should be an accurate representation of what happened or was said. If it is not possible to do this in a letter alone, personal contact with the resident to explain things in more detail may have been more appropriate. However, the letter sent does provide an opportunity for the resident to speak to the landlord to discuss matters further.
It is good practice that the landlord contacts the tenant if it is made aware of a possible tenancy breach. This makes the resident aware that certain things including unreasonable behaviour are not acceptable and demonstrates it has given a resident an opportunity to address their behaviour. It also gives reasonable warning that repeated behaviour could lead to further action. A letter is particularly important if the landlord decides to take legal action in the future, so it can use this as documentary evidence. It was therefore reasonable to send the resident a letter when it was made aware of the social media post.
In its complaint response the landlord provides further reasons to the resident about why it sent the letter. It explains that several people had seen the post and felt the comments were offensive and insulting. It said it had sent a letter before about his behaviour, stating this was not an isolated event.
Following the stage two review the landlord offered to meet with the resident as requested. This demonstrates its attempts to positively engage with the resident. This meeting would have been a good opportunity for both parties to discuss matters and understand whether the resident’s disability or PTSD impacted his behaviour or required any other support.
Although the resident remains dissatisfied with the accusations made and the contents within the responses he received, the complaints have been responded to within the timeframes of the landlord’s policy. Throughout the complaint the landlord has also responded to the resident’s requests for further information within reasonable timescales. It also provided opportunities for the resident to engage with it in a positive manner and improve the landlord and resident relationship.
The Ombudsman has been unable to find that the landlord’s communication with the resident was threatening or that the resident was treated in a heavy-handed way.

The landlord’s introduction of a contact arrangement for the resident.

The local authority which includes the landlord, introduced a contact arrangement asking the resident to email issues to a central customer service email address, or use the online forms. This was following calls made where the landlord stated the resident was abusive and had acted in an aggressive manner during calls to its contact centre, explaining this was for a temporary period and would be reviewed.
The landlord has a duty of care to its employees. It is reasonable that it takes action to ensure they are not subject to unreasonable behaviour. The new contact arrangement does not remove the right of the resident to contact the landlord or reduce service provision. It is however, asking the resident to access the service in a specific way reducing the negative impact on its staff. This is a reasonable and fair approach.
When the solicitor then wrote to the resident again it would have been helpful for the solicitor to outline what behaviour the resident displayed to provide context to the resident and seek to mitigate any confusion or frustration. However, the letter does give the resident an opportunity to contact the solicitor directly to discuss the letter in further detail if he wishes to.
Before the contact arrangement was made the resident had been regularly sending emails through. Therefore, this method of contact was not something he did not have access to or was unfamiliar with. Sending emails through to a central email would mean that the query can be passed to the correct officer or team directly to respond. The landlord appears to have dealt with all email correspondence in a timely manner, and the resident has not stated that he has not received a response. Therefore, the resident has not been at a disadvantage when he has a service request.
The resident has raised wait times with the call centre as an issue previously, which appears at the time to have been the cause of some frustration to the resident. By limiting the resident to emailing all other queries through means the resident is not having to wait on hold for service requests to be reported.
The resident has emailed several officers and an elected official in his correspondence. Limiting the resident to using a generic email address ensures the query is directed to the correct team or officer at the first point of contact. It also reduces duplication and multiple emails from officers all attempting to deal with the same matter.
The resident has been assured that he can still contact the landlord by phone to report any emergency repairs.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in its decision to send a letter to the resident about his behaviour, and the handling of the associated complaint.
2. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in its decision to introduce a restricted contact arrangement for the resident.

Reasons

The landlord felt the resident had posted something it deemed offensive on social media and breached the terms of the tenancy agreement as a result. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to send the resident a letter to advise him of this. The responses to the complaint attempted to further explain why they felt this was the right thing to do in the circumstances.
The landlord has taken steps to ensure the resident is able to access its service in a manner that he is familiar with, while ensuring employees are not subject to what they consider to be unreasonable behaviour. The resident is still able to call the landlord to report emergency repairs as required.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure letters sent to tenants contain accurate information with further explanation as appropriate.