Orbit Group Limited (202304546)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304546

Orbit Group Limited

27 February 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He moved into the property, a 1-bedroom ground floor flat, in February 2014. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident is vulnerable due to his mental health.
4. On 5 November 2021, the landlord’s Community Safety Anti-Fraud (CSAF) team referred the resident for a Tenancy Impact Coach (TIC). Records indicate that it made the referral as the resident was struggling with his mental health and it suspected that it was impacting his ability to manage his tenancy.
5. The TIC made 2 attempts to call the resident and then made successful contact with him on 16 November 2021. Notes from the call state that the resident declined assistance and said he did not want to waste the TIC’s time. The TIC told him that if he changed his mind the offer was still there.
6. Internal call records state:
   1. The TIC offered the resident fortnightly face to face visits in a café of his choice, which he declined.
   2. The resident also declined support over the phone.
   3. He told the TIC that he had already been referred for mental health support and did not feel that tenancy support was required.
7. On 22 February 2022, records indicate that the resident requested a call from the TIC as he did not agree that he had refused support. Landlord records state that the resident raised his voice and used unacceptable language. Following the call, the resident sent the TIC a text message which raised concerns about his wellbeing. Upon receipt of this text message, the TIC raised a safeguarding referral.
8. Between February 2022 and February 2023 there were no records relating to ongoing discussions about the TIC.
9. The resident made a complaint on 28 February 2023 about the TIC. He disagreed that he had refused to engage with the service. He stated that the TIC had told him the service was unsuitable as he could not leave his home or have sessions over the phone. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day.
10. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 March 2023 to say that it did not uphold his complaint. It said that as the contact with the TIC was 12 months prior, it was outside of its policy time limit of 6 months. The resident was unhappy with this response and escalated his complaint to his MP and the Ombudsman.
11. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued a final complaint response on 14 August 2023. It did not uphold his complaint. The landlord said:
    1. It did not feel the resident had received unreasonable treatment.
    2. The resident had previously used aggressive and abusive language towards the landlord over the phone.
    3. It had decided that for their safety, its staff should not conduct home visits alone. As there was only one TIC, it offered the visits in a public place.
12. On 9 October 2023 he asked the Ombudsman to investigate, as he felt he had been discriminated against. He informed us that he wants the landlord to apologise for its handling of his request, and to provide reasonable adjustments by way of face-to-face appointments in his home.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments

13. Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments. This could include providing extra aids or services or taking reasonable steps to avoid disadvantages presented by a provision or practice. This Service cannot confirm whether the resident is disabled under the definition of the Equality Act 2010, but based on the evidence provided the landlord appears to have treated the resident as though he were. It has confirmed that it is aware that he has diagnosed mental health conditions.
14. At the time of the complaint the landlord did not have a reasonable adjustments policy in place. Since the introduction of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord has introduced one. The landlord confirmed to us that it has listed the following reasonable adjustment for the resident:
    1. Contact the resident by letter to advise of scheduled home visits a week before they are due to take place.
15. We have not seen evidence of when the resident originally requested face to face visits as a reasonable adjustment, or what type of visits he needed to be in person. The landlord offered an in-person appointment at a location of his choice; however, the account of both parties’ conflicts on how he responded to this offer. We have seen evidence of the contact restriction dating back to July 2022, however it is not clear how this was communicated to the resident.
16. We have seen notes relating to phone calls between the resident and landlord, and the text message it referred to from February 2022. It is not clear what inappropriate language the landlord referred to, but we have seen evidence that the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its safeguarding policy.
17. We do not minimise the landlord’s duty of care towards its staff and acknowledge that we have only seen a record of communication directly relevant to this complaint. We have not seen a full account of all communications between the landlord and resident. It is reasonable that if the landlord believed its staff may have been at risk in any form, it decided to minimise contact with a resident. Its unacceptable behaviour policy states:
    1. It will only make the decision to restrict contact after careful consideration.
    2. It will consider the vulnerability of residents when deciding whether to restrict contact.
    3. Where possible it will give the resident time to make positive changes prior to implementing any restrictions.
    4. It will advise residents in writing of any decisions made to restrict contact.
    5. Where it restricts contact, it will set a review date and notify the resident.
18. The landlord informed the resident that lone staff would not conduct home visits by writing in its stage 2 complaint response. However, this came over 12 months after the original request and following intervention from the MP and Ombudsman. The landlord should have notified the resident of any contact restrictions in writing at the time any concerning incident took place. It should also have provided him with a review date for any restrictions in line with its unreasonable behaviour policy. There is no evidence that this took place, and a contact restriction based on one incident, unless it was significant, is unreasonable.
19. There was a history of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports between the resident and his neighbours. These reports indicated that there had been physically and verbally aggressive behaviour displayed by several involved parties, and this was ongoing at the time of the request for adjustments. In correspondence between the landlord and a third-party agency on 25 November 2021, the landlord described the resident as “reserved and non-confrontational”.
20. The resident has told this Service that he does not agree that he has displayed any aggressive behaviour toward the landlord. He also questioned why the landlord would continue to send lone working repairs staff given it had stated that he had been aggressive. The landlord’s approach was inconsistent. If it had followed its policy and written to the resident to set out the details of the restricted contact he would not have been confused as to why repair contractors came to his home when other landlord staff could not.
21. The landlord also gave incorrect information to the resident regarding the need for joint visits. In a separate complaint, the resident stated that he was unhappy that the police and CSAF team had attended his property without prior written notice. The landlord referenced this in this stage 2 response, as the landlord stated that the joint visit was a precautionary measure due to his previous aggressive behaviour. However, internal records relating to this joint visit indicate that it was at the request of the police to engage households involved in ASB in the community, and not a specific request from the landlord to ensure safety when visiting the resident.
22. The landlord offered the resident a face-to-face appointment in an alternative location, instead of appointments over the phone. The resident stated he would not feel comfortable in another location, and this is understandable given that personal information would be discussed in public. The landlord should have been consistent with its approach to contact restrictions and given him clear information about what his options were. This would have prevented any confusion.
23. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments. The decision not to complete face to face appointments with lone workers may have been appropriate, but it did not follow its policy. This meant that it did not:
    1. Inform the resident what incident had led to the decision.
    2. Allow him the opportunity to remedy the situation.
    3. Inform him of when the decision would be reviewed.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. It states that it will not investigate complaints about issues which took place over 6 months prior unless there is a valid reason.
25. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced in 2022 and sets out best practice for landlord’s complaint handling procedures. Under the Code, landlord must consider complaints where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred up to 12 months prior.
26. At the time of the complaint, following the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was not a statutory requirement for landlords. It is now a mandatory requirement that landlords follow the Code and the landlord has made this Service aware that its new policy adheres to this.
27. The landlord’s decision not to accept the complaint was reasonable and consistent with its policy at the time. The resident had not raised the conduct of the TIC for approximately 12 months. There were other open complaints made by the resident at the same time, and he had the opportunity to raise this issue. It was however, positive that the landlord proceeded with the complaint following contact from this Service.
28. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its initial decision not to proceed with the complaint was reasonable in line with the policy at the time. When approached by the Ombudsman, it agreed to proceed with the complaint and provided a stage 2 response which it issued within its policy timescales.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

31. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 2 weeks of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case, which includes a failure to follow its policy when imposing a contact restriction and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. A copy of this apology should be provided to this Service within 2 weeks of this report.
    2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must provide the resident with the current contact plan in writing and advise him when it will be reviewed. It should also specify whether there will be any deviation from this plan, such as attendance from emergency contractors. A copy of the correspondence to the resident must be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.
    3. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident a total of:
       1. £150 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble the resident experienced due to the landlord’s communication regarding the reasonable adjustments.
       2. Payment should be made directly to the resident unless he requests otherwise.
       3. Proof of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.
32. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must provide refresher training to all customer facing staff on the unacceptable behaviour process within its complaints policy. This should ensure:
    1. Residents are informed in writing (or in a format agreed as a reasonable adjustment) of:
       1. Any potential restrictions immediately after an incident of concern.
       2. How they may remedy the situation.
       3. When the contact arrangement will be reviewed.
       4. Any exceptions to the contact arrangements.
    2. The training must be completed within 6 months of this report.
    3. A copy of the proposed training plan and estimated date of completion must be provided to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of this report.