Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202311664)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311664

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

17 December 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:
1. The termination of the resident’s licence agreement.
2. The resident’s report of the use of force during eviction.

Background

The resident has been a licensee of the landlord, a housing association, since 2017. The property is a single bed-sitting room with a shared kitchen in a hostel.
Between October and November 2022, the landlord received reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by the resident from a neighbour. Following investigation of these reports, the landlord issued verbal and written warnings to the resident, and requested that he sign a voluntary acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) and move to another room in the same building. The resident declined to sign the ABA or move.
On 6 December 2022, the landlord issued a notice to quit (NTQ) to the resident along with information on his right to appeal it. The resident appealed the eviction notice on 20 December 2022. The landlord reviewed the appeal and issued its response on 6 January 2023, upholding the decision to evict. It gave him 7 days to reconsider and sign the ABA and move to a different room. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer and was subsequently evicted on 17 January 2023. He was assigned a different room in the building the same day.
On 5 February 2023, the resident logged a complaint with the landlord. He said on the day of the eviction he was harassed and bullied, and its staff used violence and force to gain entry and evict him. He said the door to his room was removed, the heating turned off, and the fire door opened to make him cold in the -2-degree temperature. He further said the staff opened the shower on him, dug an elbow into his back to make him let go of the toilet, and eventually dragged him out by his arms and legs.
In its stage 1 response of 24 February 2023, the landlord said:
1. Prior to issuing the eviction notice, it had conducted a thorough ASB investigation, offered reasonable solutions to prevent further ASB incidents, and worked with the resident to prevent homelessness by moving him to a different room.
2. Hostel staff were interviewed about the events of the eviction day, and advised they had tried to ‘encourage’ him throughout the day to leave without intervention.
3. The police were contacted for advice and support, and told staff they had the authority to remove the resident. The phone was passed to the resident to speak directly to the police and receive the same information.
4. By the evening of the eviction day it was clear he was unwilling to leave so staff took permitted action to remove him.
5. It understood the resident’s unhappiness that staff forced the door, but he had prevented them from entering by wedging it closed using his bodyweight. It considered this use of force reasonable in the circumstances as he was actively restricting access to a room he had no licence to occupy anymore; all options were exhausted before staff physically removed him
6. As a learning point, it had reviewed the end of licence process and would ensure moving forward that residents were given clear and detailed information about the actions it could/would take to remove them after the end of a licence.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 5 April 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 May 2023. It reiterated its position of stage 1 and added that the police had confirmed they did not find the landlord had acted criminally in removing the resident and its staff had been ‘reasonable and kind’ to him’. It said significant damage was caused on the day but it had not re-charged those costs to him.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service in June 2023. As a resolution to his complaint he wanted the landlord to ensure staff waited for the police to arrive, who should wear body cameras, to protect residents. He also wanted to be compensated for his experience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s investigation of this complaint is focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. We have assessed whether it adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. It is not this Service’s role to investigate or establish the actual conduct of staff on the day in question. Such personnel issues are better addressed by the landlord internally and are beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to determine (reflected at paragraph 42.h of the Scheme).
It is also not the role of the Ombudsman to establish the validity of any ASB reports made against the resident. Instead, it is for this Service to assess the landlord’s handling of the reports and determine whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Further, the issue of ASB is not the subject matter of this complaint. Therefore, any reference to the issues of ASB are made only in so far as they relate to the substantive issues of this complaint.

The termination of the resident’s licence agreement

The resident’s licence agreement says the landlord can terminate it by giving 28 days’ written notice, or where the resident has caused serious or persistent nuisance to other residents or breached a clause, 7 days’ written notice. It further notes that, as an excluded licence, the landlord can evict the licensee without applying to the court for a possession order. The licence agreement further sets out clauses about ASB and the expected standards of behaviour from residents.
The agreement says the landlord has the right of access to the property at all times, and it has the right to move the resident to another room/property. It further says the resident has no rights to exclude the landlord from the room/property at any time. The agreement stipulates that on termination, the resident is responsible for the removal of all possessions and must leave the property in good condition and repair; making him liable for the costs of any removal, storage, or other work carried out which he was responsible for.
The landlord’s eviction policy says it can be used where there is evidence of breaches of the occupation agreement, including for ASB, where reasonable options to support the resident to remedy the breaches have been made. It can be used where alternative means of resolving breaches have been exhausted, and/or the resident has not engaged to remedy the breaches.
The evidence shows that the landlord received reports of ASB by the resident, and in November 2022 the reports indicated an escalation in the behaviour. The landlord had an obligation to respond to these reports in line with its ASB policy and procedure and it was, therefore, right for it to open an ASB case to investigate. It conducted a risk assessment, interviewed the neighbour, and tried to contact the resident by telephone and email to invite him for interviews to discuss the breaches.
The requested meetings with the resident were to advise him of the behaviour the landlord considered to be breaches of the agreement and to give him advice and support on amending it. However, the resident did not respond to these requests. The landlord subsequently issued verbal and written warnings to the resident and made visits to warn him that his behaviour was in breach of his licence agreement, asked him to amend this, and to sign an ABA. The resident declined to arrange or attend meetings or to sign the ABA.
The landlord offered to move the resident to another room in the same building, but he declined. The landlord then warned the resident that if he did not work with it to resolve the issue, and because he was in breach of his licence agreement, he would be served with an eviction notice. As the resident refused to engage with the landlord, and was in contravention of the terms of the licence agreement, it issued an NTQ giving him 28 days to make alternative arrangements and informing him of his right to appeal.
The evidence shows that the resident’s appeal was properly considered in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord gave a further opportunity at this stage for the resident to follow its proposed steps in order to avoid eviction, but he still did not accept these. The notice period then expired and the eviction process was completed.
The evidence shows that the correct policies and procedures were followed by the landlord in issuing the eviction notice and reviewing the appeal. It is noted that, in addition to allocating the resident another room within the building, the landlord waived its right to re-charge the resident for damage caused to the property and the cost of removing his belongings. This was a positive action demonstrating the landlord’s desire to support the resident in difficult circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the termination of the resident’s licence agreement.
The resident’s report of the use of force during eviction

The resident has confirmed that he filed a report with the police and they told him they would not be taking further action. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the communication it received from the police. In this, the police said they had reviewed the CCTV footage from the hostel and did not find any evidence of criminal acts or behaviour. However, the landlord has also provided this Service with a copy of its CCTV FAQ sheet which says that there are no cameras inside the resident’s room; where he says he was sprayed with cold water, elbowed in the back, and dragged.
It is noted that the landlord said it interviewed the staff involved and, in its complaint responses, it addressed the resident’s comments about the use of force to get past his door. However, it did not address (nor provide this Service with any evidence to show it had investigated) his allegations about: the door removal; heating being turned off; fire door being left open; dousing him with cold water; elbowing his back; or dragging him out by his arms and legs.
The landlord’s eviction policy says it will change the locks upon expiry of the NTQ or when a review has been completed and the resident has been notified. This is presumably to ensure the resident is eventually forced to vacate since there are no cooking facilities within the room. The policy is silent on what other actions the landlord will take to remove a resident who has not vacated the property upon notice expiry. The landlord said it found the use of force justified as the resident was preventing access. However, given that it is the landlord’s policy to change locks, it is not clear why its staff opted to force the door instead of calling a locksmith and waiting out the resident’s occupation of the room.
The landlord has not told this Service whether it had a separate policy or guidance which instructed staff on what it considered to be acceptable measures and level of force to use for removal. It has not said whether its staff did, in fact, carry out the actions alleged as part of its approved practices to ‘encourage’ the resident to vacate the property voluntarily.
If the landlord did conduct staff interviews about these specific allegations, it has not provided this Service with those notes or even advised if these cannot be made available due to confidentiality reasons. There is simply no evidence that these allegations were investigated at all, and this is supported by the lack of reference to them in the stage 1 and 2 responses, despite the resident listing them explicitly in his complaint email of 5 February 2023.
While it is not this Service’s role to decide what is an acceptable use of force during an eviction, it is highly unusual for a landlord’s staff to be involved in, and delegated the role of, physically removing a resident upon eviction. While advice was sought from the police who said the landlord had the right to remove the resident, there should have been a clear policy in place at the time which set out what this looks like for residents and staff.
The landlord said in its complaint responses that it was introducing literature to tell residents the actions hostel staff may take to remove them from their properties after the end of licence notice period expired. The proposed literature has not been shared with this Service, so it is not known whether this has been drafted or what these actions might be. The landlord told this Service that the hostel manager has put in place further guidance for staff working on the premises, including a checklist to ensure all information regarding the end of licence is recorded accurately.
A copy of this guidance has not been shared with this Service, but a copy of the eviction day form was provided. This form does not give guidance or approved actions for eviction beyond contacting the police. It is, therefore, unclear whether the landlord has conducted a review to ensure that the actions listed in the literature, both internally and externally, are reasonable, proportionate and suitably risk assessed, and safeguard both its staff and residents.
In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of the use of force during eviction. The landlord is ordered below to write to the resident with an apology and pay him £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It is further ordered to review how it handled the resident’s case, paying particular attention to its position regarding this type of eviction and the role its staff play during it. The findings of the review should aim to provide clarity and transparency for both residents and support its staff.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in its termination of the resident’s licence agreement.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of the use of force during eviction.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its failure in the handling of the resident’s report of the use of force during eviction.
2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures.
Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has reviewed this case and its procedures to ensure:
1. It identifies any gaps and failures in its current excluded licence eviction process.
2. It effectively manages its excluded licence eviction process to avoid similar issues.
3. It confirms its position regarding this type of eviction (where a court order is not required) and its approach on whether staff will or will not use force to:

i. Gain entry to the property.

ii. Carry out the physical removal of a resident from the property or premises.

If the use of force is approved, staff will be:

i. Sufficiently trained, with processes in place to monitor and audit this practice.

ii. Risk assessed to ensure both resident and staff safety.

iii. Provided with clear guidance and parameters so that there is no room for abuse of powers.

Safeguards are put in place to allow for and facilitate adequate investigations of this type of complaint and/or allegations. Consideration should be given to the use of body cameras by staff involved in the physical eviction to ensure impartial investigations can be conducted in the event of a complaint.
Action has been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings occurring in the future.