Homes Plus Limited (202128413)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128413

Homes Plus Limited

10 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of poor communication.
   2. Request to move property.
   3. Reports of poor staff conduct and alleged discrimination.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. There are various vulnerabilities in the property, which the landlord was aware of during the complaint’s procedure.
3. In July 2020, the resident requested information in relation to a potential purchase of land nearby her property. However, the resident did not receive a response to this request.
4. In November 2020, the resident reported that she had been subject to a business crime and an attempted break-in at her property making her feel unsafe in her property and as such, she requested a move. In addition, the resident felt that the landlord had acted in a discriminatory manner towards her due to her mental health conditions. She raised concerns that the landlord was not acting in accordance with its policies and procedures as it was discriminating against her and this was putting her and her family at risk.
5. In November 2021, the resident raised a complaint stating that she had been suffering from long term discrimination at the hands of the landlord and this had affected her ability to move property. This included disability discrimination and victimisation. The resident explained that in November 2020 she requested a Subject Access Request (SAR); however, she did not receive any documentation in relation to this request. As such, she completed a further request in October 2021, in which she had received partial pieces of information which she believed clearly showed discrimination and victimisation by the landlord. The resident believed that her situation could have been avoided, and that she was manipulated and psychologically abused by the landlord. In addition, the resident felt that due to the landlord’s legal services not providing a response to her request for information to purchase land, this further supported her belief that she was being discriminated against. The resident stated that inappropriate comments made by staff and the inaccuracies documented on its systems was a failing. As a resolution to her complaint the resident requested:
   1. An apology;
   2. An investigation into staff conduct, and for the staff members to face disciplinary action;
   3. Request for rehousing;
   4. Compensation for distress, inconvenience and loss of earnings;
   5. A meeting with the chief executive;
   6. Policy reviews to better protect vulnerable residents;
   7. An explanation as to why the landlord felt comfortable treating her in an unacceptable manner; and
   8. For the discrimination and abuse to cease with immediate effect.
6. In its complaint responses of 17 December 2021 and 16 January 2022, the landlord stated that in relation to her request to move property, she had been provided with the appropriate support and did not at the time, qualify for a property move. In response to her concerns about the lack of response to her SAR request, the landlord explained that the files were not provided due to the resident failing to provide correct answers to the security questions asked. In addition, it acknowledged that its legal services did not provide a response in relation to her interest in purchasing land and that this was a failing in its services; however, there was no evidence that the lack of response was due to discrimination. It further acknowledged that some comments made by staff members were insensitive and inappropriate, and that it had reminded all staff members to be conscious of the tone and language being used in its internal communication and be more sensitive to residents’ vulnerabilities and requirements. However, after reviewing the internal communication it had not identified that any comments or actions were discriminatory and as such, this aspect of the resident’s complaint could not be upheld. In recognition of the failures identified, it offered the resident compensation of £335. This was comprised of:
   1. £60 for not receiving a response from legal services;
   2. £250 for any distress that remarks made by the staff caused the resident; and
   3. £25 for the stage one response being delayed.
7. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service in September 2022. The resident stated that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her allegations of discrimination and its failure to communicate. As a resolution, she wanted to move property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

8. The landlord’s lettings policy states that those with housing related debt would be ineligible for a housing transfer application.
9. The lettings policy further states that to be deemed a carer for re-housing purposes, evidence must be provided to show that a carer resides at the property for no less than three nights per week.

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s action or inaction has impacted her mental health namely, it has caused her stress and anxiety. Whilst this Service empathises with the resident, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
11. The resident has also referred to poor staff conduct and alleged discrimination, in which she would like the staff members to be reprimanded. It should be noted that this Service, when investigating a complaint about a member landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated Orders and Recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. In short, we can look at staff conduct in some cases and we may award compensation or order an apology or staff training due to staff misconduct. What we cannot do is order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members.

Communication

12. The resident stated that she made a request to purchase land on 20 July 2020; however, she did not receive a response. No policies have been provided to this Service to detail when a resident should receive a response in relation to a potential purchase of land. It is generally accepted that enquiries relating to the purchase of land may take longer than an average service request in light of the legal aspect of these matters. In light of this, a small delay in receiving a response would be reasonable; however, the resident experienced a delay of over 16 months which is excessive and unreasonable and it remains unclear if the resident has been provided with a response to her enquiry if she remains interested in the purchase of the land. As such, this was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident and would have inevitably caused the resident inconvenience as a response to her enquiry was delayed significantly. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident continued to chase this until she raised a complaint in November 2021 and this has been taken into consideration in this Service’s findings and orders.
13. The complaints policy states that a response should be provided within ten working days at stage one. However, in this case the landlord did not provide a response until after 13 working days meaning that the complaint response was delayed by three working days. Therefore, it did not act in accordance with its complaint handling policy; however, this delay was of short duration and had no significant impact on the overall outcome of the complaint, but would have caused the resident some level of distress. As such, the landlord reasonably compensated the resident £25 for this delay in its communication.
14. However, the combined total of £85 for its poor communication during the period relating to the purchase of land and delay in complaint response, overall was inadequate. This was due to the excessive delay in responding to the resident’s enquiry to purchase. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation in-light of these delays. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. This is inclusive of the £85 offered (£60 legal service and £25 complaint response communication delays).

Request to move property

15. It is noted that the resident requested to be moved into a different property as she no longer felt comfortable in the property in view of what had happened in relation to the reported incident in 2020, the subsequent break-in and her need to have a bedroom for a carer to stay in. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move, however, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness. However, we can assess how the landlord handled the resident’s request and if it did so in-line with its policy and procedures.
16. In this case, the landlord informed the resident that it had considered the  application and found that there was no supporting evidence to suggest that the resident required urgent re-housing or a management transfer as she was appropriately housed.
17. In relation to the resident’s claims that she required an additional bedroom to house a carer, the landlord explained that for this to be supporting of a property move the resident would need to provide evidence that the carer stayed overnight for no less than three nights a week. However, the resident did not provide this evidence to the landlord and as such, it could not support the resident’s claims that she had a carer that lived in the property for no less than three nights a week. Therefore, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take as it did not have the supporting evidence to support an application for re-housing.
18. Furthermore, the landlord appropriately informed the resident that due to the arrears on her account totalling £3337.45, this would stop any request to be rehoused unless medical evidence was supplied to suggest an urgent move was required. This was in-line with the landlord’s lettings policy, and as stated above, there was a lack of medical evidence or evidence to support a carer living in the property. As such, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy in relation to the resident’s request for rehousing.

Staff conduct and allegations of discrimination

19. The resident has accused members of the landlord’s staff of being discriminatory. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to the corresponding complaint handling.
20. When receiving complaints regarding discriminatory behaviour the landlord should complete a full and thorough investigation into the resident’s claims. This includes reviewing any internal records in which the resident believes showed discrimination. In this case, the landlord reviewed the specific communication the resident signposted to it, in which, the resident felt highlighted the discriminatory conduct and behaviour by its staff members. Upon reviewing this, the landlord concluded that the wording and behaviour used was insensitive and inappropriate; however, there was a lack of evidence to suggest that this was based on discriminatory beliefs by its staff members. Therefore, the landlord conducted the appropriate investigations into the resident’s allegations and handled the complaint appropriately.
21. It is not disputed that the resident felt discriminated against by some members of the landlord’s staff and that lessons can be learnt on how to reduce the risk of such interpretation in the future. However, based on the evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it could not conclude that the staff members’ actions were deliberately prejudicial or discriminatory. As such, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns during the investigation process as it attempted to put matters right by awarding the resident £250 compensation for any distress the comments made by its staff members had on the resident. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but has been of no permanent impact.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of poor communication.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to move property.
24. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct and discrimination satisfactorily.

Orders

25. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for its poor communication. This is inclusive of the £85 previously offered and should be paid within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

26. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £250 compensation offered for its poor staff conduct, if it has not done so already.