Places for People Group Limited (202202414)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202414

Places for People Group Limited

28 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 response to concerns raised about its attitude and approach towards the resident.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s installation of CCTV.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called this Service’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that this Service may not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident says within her complaint that the landlord did not comply with an information request, by failing to provide certain documents and redacting other items she believes should have been disclosed in full. These are matters that would fall properly under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’), should the resident wish to raise a complaint. The ICO is an expert in the rules concerning requests for information. The resident may seek independent advice about her options to progress her concerns with the ICO.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that this Service may not investigate complaints that concern matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident raises the position that the landlord discriminated against her. This investigation will consider how the landlord handled the discrimination assertion and whether it had due regard to its legal obligations concerning the matters in issue. However, this Service is not able to make a finding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. This is a finding that would have to be decided on by a court.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a three bedroom property owned by the landlord, a housing association. She has a joint assured tenancy with her husband that began in January 2019. The resident and her husband jointly brought this complaint to this Service.
The resident installed a CCTV system with external cameras and a ring doorbell during the course of her tenancy. The resident said the cameras were installed on moving into the property, and the ring doorbell in 2020. The landlord acknowledged being aware of the cameras some time prior to the events described below, however the date of knowledge is not advised or evident from its records.
The landlord informed this Service that the resident has known vulnerabilities relating to her physical health. The landlord’s records also show that the resident disclosed to the landlord that she suffered with a mental health condition.

Summary of events

The landlord’s complaint correspondence said it became aware of local concern about the resident’s camera system and was contacted by police reporting complaints. It stated the police requested a joint visit to the property to investigate the concerns. The records supplied to this Service did not include any reports about the system or the advised contact by police.
On 7 March 2022, the landlord visited the resident at her home accompanied by a police community support officer (pcso). It is not disputed by the landlord that no advance notice of the visit was given. The landlord knocked at the door on four separate occasions. The resident did not answer. On the final occasion, the landlord’s officer returned alone. They took photographs of the external CCTV cameras. A conversation took place between the landlord’s officer and the resident about permission for the CCTV equipment installed at the property.
Later that day, the resident made a complaint to the landlord and a report to police about the landlord’s officer’s conduct. Her complaint to the landlord stated that its officer attending her home:
1. Attended without any prior notice on each occasion;
2. Drove erratically into the street and caused damage to property;
3. Failed to show identification on arrival;
4. Entered her home without permission and inappropriately took photographs outside the property;
5. Gave an inconsistent account of complaints made about her CCTV equipment;
6. Presented in a manner that was threatening and harassing. In particular that:
  1. The landlord knocked on four separate occasions and returned repeatedly within a short period;
  2. The police presence was intimidatory and not for safety reasons;
  3. Warnings were given about further enforcement including court;
  4. Disparaging comments were made with reference to a previous complaint raised by the resident;
7. Acted in a way that was discriminatory.
The resident asserted she had been given prior verbal permission by the landlord in 2020 for the CCTV equipment. She explained she installed CCTV cameras in 2019 and no complaint or action had been raised. She informed the landlord that she had cameras for her safety and assistance as a victim of assault. She raised concern about the landlord’s motivation for investigating this issue given that she had raised a separate complaint about their visiting officer.
The resident’s complaint requested that the officer did not attend the immediate area anymore. She requested that any contact with her be by email or letter only.
On 15 March 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It advised a target complaint response date of 21 March 2022, however explained it was awaiting information relevant to its investigation from police. The landlord provided assurance that if this would lead to a delayed response, it would be in touch further to advise of ‘any extension required’.
On the evening of 22 March 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord that she had received no further status update. She remarked this made her feel that the landlord did not care. She provided an update about support and information she had been seeking following the visits of 7 March 2022, including that:
1. The police confirmed she was the victim of a personal vendetta and the landlord’s officer should be removed from operating in the area. She was advised to tell police if the officer came to the estate; they would potentially have grounds for arrest and prosecution for harassment;
2. She would be making the press aware that the landlord acted in a threatening and intimidatory way.
On 23 March 2022, the landlord called the resident. It updated her that its complaint handler was off work sick and that they would make contact on their return and issue the complaint response by 31 March 2022.
On 25 March 2022, the landlord called the resident and left her a voice message. It sent an email later that day apologising for the communication delay in its complaint investigation. It explained this was due to it awaiting information from the police and the complaint handler’s absence from work. The landlord said it was informed that the criminal investigation was now concluded and it would obtain an account from the PCSO present on 7 March 2022 before the target response date of 31 March 2022.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord’s complaint handler called the resident. The call was cut short. Before the call ended, the landlord noted the resident’s request that its officer be removed as local manager for the estate and that she be contacted only in writing. The resident followed up the call with a text message to the landlord asking that it did not call her.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It said:
1. The police had confirmed that the criminal investigation was concluded with no further action. This was contrary to the information provided by her in their earlier call;
2. In response to her position that she would contact police if the landlord’s officer was seen near her home, it did not require authorisation to visit the estate;
3. It had checked the crime reference number provided by her. This was the same investigation advised by police to have concluded;
4. The police told the landlord they were unaware of any letters as mentioned by the resident.
5. It acknowledged the text sent by the resident requesting that the complaint be assigned to a ‘more senior impartial person’. It explained the basis of the complaint investigation, the complaint handler’s seniority and role.
6. It offered an opportunity for the resident to provide any further information by 12pm on 30 March 2022.
On 28 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction at the call held with the complaint handler. The resident said that the landlord had ‘tried to get into an argument with me’. She advised she did not want the complaint handler to manage her case. She expressed that she was ‘heading for a nervous breakdown all because of this’.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord provided its response to the resident’s complaint. It stated the following:
1. It was sorry for the delay providing the complaint response caused by the linked criminal investigation;
2. The joint visit on 7 March 2022 with police was at their request. This followed three reports made to police about the CCTV equipment. The landlord was seeking to investigate whether CCTV had been installed without permission;
3. Whilst it would usually provide a minimum of 24 hours’ notice of an intended visit, it was appropriate that it attended on 7 March 2022 without appointment. It promised any future visits on this issue would be by advance agreement;
4. It made attempts to gain the attention of those inside the property at the front and rear. It visited at 11.55am, 11.58am and 12pm. The landlord’s officer alone returned at 12.19pm;
5. The police investigation concluded that the visits of 7 March 2022 were conducted in line with the landlord officer’s professional duties;
6. The photographs taken of the external CCTV were appropriate and necessary for its investigation and related solely to the cameras;
7. It had interviewed the attending landlord officer and PSCO who said they introduced themselves and were wearing identification. They did not recall the resident asking for proof of identification;
8. The attending officer and pcso deny that the landlord’s officer acted in a threatening or intimidating manner or made the threats as alleged. The police advised the landlord that the resident’s CCTV and ring doorbell footage contained ‘no evidence’ of the alleged threats or that the officer ran at her. That the police had closed its investigation, finding no evidence of harassment, threatening or intimating behaviour.
9. The police informed the landlord it had investigated the allegations of damage and erratic driving. Its review of the CCTV found no evidence;
10. The CCTV equipment installed at the property did not have the landlord’s written consent as required under the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord required that the resident apply for retrospective permission in line with its CCTV policy. The landlord warned that failure to submit an application within 7 days would give it ‘no other option’ than to request removal of her cameras ‘with immediate effect’;
11. It had reviewed the resident’s conduct as part of her complaint and found her behaviour to have been ‘unacceptable’.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming its position that her communication as part of her complaint had been found ‘unacceptable’ in line with its behaviour policy. The landlord detailed the following as evidence of this alleged conduct:
1. The resident made allegations about its attending officer on 7 March 2022 that the police found ‘unsubstantiated’;
2. The resident falsely alleged its staff made statements accepting a personal vendetta against her and service failings;
3. The resident is alleged to have been abusive to the landlord’s officer at the visit of 7 March 2022;
4. The resident repeatedly failed to accept the information given to it by police that the criminal investigation was closed;
5. The police advised that the landlord’s officer could continue her duties in the local area, however the resident would not accept this position;
6. The resident provided untrue statements about advice relayed to her by the police;
7. The resident made allegations about the behaviour of the complaint handler during a phone call that were untrue;
8. The resident’s request that the complaint handler did not contact her and for change of complaint handler.
The landlord’s letter gave advice about expected behaviours for future contact and advised the resident that a repeat of the behaviours alleged could lead to restrictions on contact or enforcement action.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint by her email of 4 April 2022. In this complaint she said:
1. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was biased, defamatory, threatening and blackmailing;
2. The landlord had relied on ‘hearsay’ rather than direct evidence and took into account irrelevant material.
3. She disputed the landlord’s findings about the facts of the visit on 7 March 2022 and its description of her call with the complaint handler;
4. An update to the police investigation; the landlord had relied on inaccurate information from the police who had not viewed her CCTV;
5. She took issue with the explanation of its further action warning;
6. She was already given permission in 2020 for her CCTV installed in 2019. She disputed any issues with its legal compliance and stated it was installed after she was a victim of local crime. The landlord’s recent position about her CCTV was unreasonable and inappropriate;
7. She lived with severe mental health, worsened by the landlord’s allegations and threats to remove CCTV. The resident was described as ‘extremely vulnerable’ and ‘currently going through a mental and nervous breakdown’. It is explained that the CCTV equipment supported her feeling safe;
8. The landlord was discriminatory by its issue of the unacceptable behaviour letter. She disputed the characterisation of her behaviour; she presented as someone with mental health issues and not unreasonable. She explained the landlord’s non-compliance with her contact request caused distress.
By letter of 7 April 2022, the landlord confirmed retrospective permission for the installation of CCTV cameras at the resident’s home.
On 8 April 2022 by email the resident gave an update to the landlord about her contact with the police.
The landlord’s records of 21 April 2022 refer to the escalated complaint handler holding a meeting with the previous complaint handler and attending officer of 7 March 2022. This Service has requested a copy of the notes of the meeting. The landlord advised no note was made.
On 27 April 2022, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response letter. It stated:
1. The stage one response was detailed and answered many of the points raised by the resident; it referred her back to its stage one response and said it would respond to ‘new’ points;
2. The landlord attended with police at their request for a joint visit;
3. A further explanation to specific points raised by the resident;
4. The landlord enclosed a copy of the photographs taken at her home 7 March 2022 of cameras installed at the property;
5. In respect of the resident’s concern about the handling of her CCTV, it noted she had now submitted an application for retrospective permission and it was advisable to await this process;
6. It acknowledged having previous discussion with her about CCTV, however this was guidance only and not permission in writing. It apologised that it did not identify the CCTV issue sooner;
7. In respect of the concerns raised by the resident about its unacceptable behaviour letter, her assertion it was discriminatory and the impact of contact, the resident was referred back to its original letter that it said offered a ‘detailed explanation’;
8. It found no evidence of inappropriate action or behaviour regarding staff members.
The landlord’s complaint handling record at stage two makes a note of the resident’s email of 7 March 2022, requesting communication by email or letter next to the prompt to discuss the complaint with her.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted this Service on 4 May 2022. The resident advised that:
1. The landlord’s officer acted in a harassing, bullying and threatening manner on 7 March 2022 during a home visit;
2. The landlord attended her home unauthorised and without notice;
3. The investigation conducted by the landlord was one-sided and unfair. It failed to consider her CCTV footage or audio offered;
4. She found the landlord’s complaint responses to be biased, harassing and threatening;
5. She made a request for information to the landlord but they failed to provide documents requested and redacted others.
The resident’s evidence to this Service included CCTV. This footage captured images only and did not include audio.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right;
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

There is an obligation upon the resident within the tenancy agreement to allow the landlord access at all reasonable hours to inspect or carry out repairs. The landlord says it will normally provide 24 hours’ notice but in an ‘emergency’ may require immediate access.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that its investigations should be conducted impartially, seeking sufficient and reliable information from both parties to make fair and appropriate findings. It requires all information and evidence to be considered carefully.
The landlord’s complaints procedure details the need to provide a ‘full, objective and proportionate response’ to address all issues raised and demonstrate a full and fair investigation. The complaints procedure states its aim to give a full, clear and reasoned response to each issue raised. This reflects the obligations of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) at paragraph 5.6 that a landlord address all points raised by a resident and provide clear reasons for any decisions, with reference to relevant policy and law where appropriate.
In accordance with its complaints procedure, the landlord’s response to the resident’s’ complaint at stage one is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage two response in 20 working days. The procedure allows for an extension of time, unspecified but described as ‘short’, where necessary due to unforeseen circumstances. In these circumstances, the landlord is required to explain the reasons for the extension, advise of the expected updated timescales and agree these with the complainant. The Code also requires a landlord to keep its resident regularly updated about progress.
An appendix to the landlord’s complaints procedure, ‘being complained about guidance’ sets out specific guidance for handling complaints about staff conduct. The landlord says it will give the staff member and complainant the opportunity to provide evidence to support what they say. The guidance provides that the landlord may decide to reallocate contact with the complainant on a temporary or permanent basis.
The landlord’s complaints procedure at Appendix 3 sets out how it should handle contact with customers with vulnerabilities. It underlines the importance of those involved in a complaint being mindful of the complainant’s vulnerabilities and giving consideration to whether it can take practical steps to improve a customer’s complaint journey or avoid harm. It describes actions that may be taken to tailor its approach such as changing how it communicates.
The landlord is required more generally to have regard to a complainant’s disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must not treat that person unfavourably because of something arising from the effects of their disability. It must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making/ actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord is also required to make reasonable adjustments taking into account a known disability.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to ‘treat all tenants with fairness and respect’ and ‘demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs’ with a specific expectation that providers will ‘demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants’.
The landlord’s behaviour policy provides for issue of a ‘help us to help you’ letter as a way to handle behaviour identified as unreasonable at an early stage. The policy describes types of behaviours that could be considered unreasonable as:
1. making derogatory or untrue comments regarding staff;
2. refusing to follow the complaint process or deliberately obstructing it;
3. persistent refusal to accept explanations or decisions;
4. aggressive or abusive behaviour.

This policy also requires that the landlord be mindful of a complainant’s disability.

The tenancy agreement includes a prohibition against the installation of CCTV at the property without written permission of the landlord. The landlord’s domestic CCTV policy allows it to grant permission retrospectively. It requires that where it identifies non-compliance, its actions should be ‘appropriate and proportionate’ and the tenant given a ‘reasonable length of time to comply’.

The landlord’s response to concerns raised about its attitude and approach towards the resident

This Service is not able to make findings of fact as to what exactly occurred at the visits of 7 March 2022. This Service will consider the landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident. This includes whether the landlord appropriately and fairly investigated the resident’s complaint based on available information, followed proper procedure and took reasonable steps to respond in a way that was fair in all the circumstances.
The landlord provided an explanation for its attendance on 7 March 2022, specifically the request by police and reported local concern, that has sufficient detail and is reasonable and clear. It communicated an explanation for the photographs taken that reasonably answered the concerns raised and was transparent providing copies for assurance.
The landlord does not, however, address directly a number of the issues raised by the resident. Its responses are silent on her allegations that the landlord’s officer acted in a discriminatory way or entered her home without permission. As such, the landlord failed to address all conduct issues raised by her report and provide a full response as required by its complaints policy and the Code.
This Service notes that in relation to the landlord’s attendances on 7 March 2022, it concluded that the visits at 11.55am, 11.58am and 12pm ‘would constitute one visit’. There is no evidence presented to support this conclusion. On a factual basis, three visits to a property at three distinct times are three separate visits. This Service finds that it was unreasonable for the landlord to adopt this position. By misidentifying the number of visits, it failed to assess whether all multiple attendances were reasonably necessary and thus respond to the specific concern raised by the resident.
The landlord is noted to have sought information from appropriate sources to inform its investigation into the reports made about the visits on 7 March 2022. It obtained accounts from the officer subject of the complaint and the attending pcso present at three of the visits. It is appropriate that the landlord relied on the account of the attending pcso as reliable evidence of the visits when she accompanied its officer. It further liaised on multiple occasions with a police constable for information relevant to the investigation. It demonstrated an effort to seek sufficient and reliable evidence in accordance with its policy.
It is reasonable that it gave weight to the police investigation that found no evidence of harassment, threatening or intimidating behaviour given the proximity to the complaint. However, the matter(s) considered by the police and the findings of their criminal investigation were not the same as the matters in issue for the complaint. The police considered whether there had been criminal offence(s). The landlord was required to consider whether its staff member acted as alleged by the resident and consider all concerns raised. The landlord’s investigation was necessarily required to be wider and separate.
The landlord gave significant weight to the police’s account of their review of the resident’s CCTV and ring doorbell footage. The resident disputed this information in her stage two complaint and at both stages, specifically told the landlord she had footage corroborating her account. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord requested a copy of her recordings, even after her assertion that the police’s account was incorrect. In the circumstances of the disputed account, particularly the fourth visit for which the landlord had no corroborating police evidence, it was unreasonable that it did not take this further investigative step. The footage was highly relevant material; it was asserted by the resident to provide direct evidence of her allegations.
This Service finds accordingly that the landlord failed to consider or seek relevant information for its investigation as required by its complaints procedure. It instead relied solely on the second hand account relayed by the police.
The landlord was on notice that the resident was a lady living with mental health issues, as evident from its tenancy records. The resident was described in her complaint correspondence as ‘extremely vulnerable’ and at that point in time ‘going through a mental and nervous breakdown’. It was explained that she lived with PTSD and anxiety and asserted that the landlord’s approach towards her had caused a worsening of her mental health.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord considered its pre-existing knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities during the complaint process or responded to her updated expression of her mental health. It was specifically required to do so in line with its procedures, the Equality Act 2010 and good practice guidance. It failed to identify that her vulnerabilities were a relevant factor when assessing the reasonableness of the steps it had taken. It failed to consider whether it could have communicated with the resident in a way that took account of any additional support needs she may have had. It failed to consider whether any other adjustments to its service may have been appropriate to prevent undue detriment to the resident. There is no evidence showing that the resident’s vulnerabilities were considered or acknowledged at all by the landlord despite being raised by the resident directly at stage two.
The landlord’s failures represent a missed opportunity to consider whether the resident’s journey through the complaint process could have been tailored to account for her individual vulnerabilities. It also lead to a failure to assess the reasonableness of its actions with the benefit of understanding this relevant factor. Had the landlord taken the resident’s vulnerabilities into account as requires, this may have avoided potential areas for misunderstanding or distress.
It is not disputed that no advance notice was given of the home visits and that the landlord sought to inspect the resident’s CCTV system including internally. The landlord’s complaint response explains that in some circumstances it was not possible or appropriate to provide the requisite 24 hours advanced notice. The landlord’s complaint response found it was appropriate to attend without notice given the visit formed part of an investigation with police. It advised it was necessary to conduct a thorough investigation, but accepted there was no emergency.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to support the position that its investigation into the resident’s CCTV system required a without notice inspection. While the police may have the right to present at a property seeking inspection without prior notice, the landlord must act within the limits of its own legal powers. It acknowledged repeatedly knocking at the resident’s front and back doors on four separate occasions without appointment. Such actions would present as reasonable had there been a justifiable emergency. By the landlord’s own admission, the circumstances did not present an emergency, the only exception allowed in line with the tenancy for failing to give notice. This Service has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s lack of notice against its tenancy obligations was reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaint response provided confirmation to the resident that future visits on the same matter would be by prior appointment. It was appropriate that such assurance was provided. However, this did not acknowledge it had acted unreasonably and the assurance alone was insufficient to remedy its lack of notice or acknowledge the impact to the resident.
The resident described in her complaint correspondence that the visits caused distress and fear. Its complaint responses gave no consideration of the potential distress caused by repeat attendances made without prior warning or explanation, particularly to a person with vulnerabilities. Its failure to do so against its obligations was unreasonable in all the circumstances.
The resident requested that the landlord’s officer, subject of her complaint, did not visit the area immediate to her home. The landlord failed to properly consider this request; it simply informed her of its entitlement to continue visits. The complaints procedure refers to the landlord’s discretion to reallocate contact where necessary and possible. It did not consider with reasoning why its continued presence was necessary and reasonable against the facts of this complaint. When viewed against the resident’s assertion that interim local visits would cause distress, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out its reasoning more clearly and show regard to the resident’s position.
In respect of the landlord’s issue of a behaviour warning to the resident, this Service will not consider or make findings as to whether the resident acted in the way alleged or displayed ‘unacceptable behaviour’. It will consider the landlord’s issue of and its handling of the unacceptable behaviour warning to the resident.
The landlord relied on accounts of the pcso, its own officer present and police information to support its finding that the resident acted in an abusive manner on 7 March 2022, and subsequently made untrue statements about the visits. As commented above, it is entirely fair and reasonable that the landlord gave significant weight to the accounts of those present.
The landlord relied on the account of its relevant staff for whom the resident is said to have made false assertions about their admission of personal vendetta and service failings. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on the account and notes of this officer to make this finding. It was fair in all the circumstances that the landlord relied on this finding to reach a conclusion that this conduct was unacceptable in line with its behaviour policy.
The landlord’s behaviour warning was also based on its finding that the resident repeatedly failed to accept information that it relayed to her from the police about the status of the criminal investigation. While the landlord supported this finding with reasonable evidence, it was disproportionate to rely on her expressed understanding as unacceptable behaviour. There is no reasonable evidence cited or justification given to support a position that she was intentionally misleading. The information relayed by police is covered in detail by the landlord within its complaint’s response. This was a sufficient means of providing counter to the position asserted by the resident.
The landlord found that the resident misrepresented other information provided to her by police. The landlord considered the resident’s account of information given to her by police against the police’s direct account. It is reasonable that the landlord relied on the police as direct source of the information given as authoritative. While it would be reasonable for the landlord to allow room for potential misunderstanding, it was appropriate in the context of the assertions made by the resident that it questioned the authenticity of the inconsistencies. The landlord’s finding of unacceptable behaviour by the resident’s communication of other police information was reasonable.
The landlord further considered as unreasonable that the resident raised what it found to be untrue concerns about the conduct of the complaint handler. The landlord recited the resident’s text message and subsequent email of 28 March 2022 as its evidential basis. Essentially, the allegation made by the resident was that the complaint hander ‘tried to get into an argument’ with her.
While the landlord reasonably found on its evidence that the complaint handler did not seek to ‘get into an argument’, it was not reasonable that it treated the resident’s concerns about their conduct as unacceptable behaviour. Although the landlord’s behaviour policy says that ‘untrue’ comments about its staff is unacceptable behaviour, this does not mean it is proportionate for it to rely on every contested allegation made by a resident. The landlord has not provided evidence or justification that a simple explanation of its position to the resident was inadequate in the circumstances, particularly in view of the resident’s apparent and cited distress. The landlord’s reliance on the resident’s concerns about the complaint handler as unacceptable conduct was disproportionate.
There is no evidence on the landlord’s records or in the correspondence on this matter that the resident was given any opportunity to comment upon the intended adverse findings about her behaviour. The landlord relies on accounts subsequently taken from witnesses that she acted abusively, misrepresented an understanding of circumstances and was dishonest. These accounts were not put to the resident for comment or response. This was unfair as a matter of procedure.
The issue of a behaviour warning is a document held on the resident’s tenancy file and would likely be relied on if further action was taken. As the warning has the potential for adverse effect, there should be particular regard to procedural fairness in the landlord’s decision making and issue. The behaviour warning was issued by the landlord’s complaint handler as part of its complaint response. Its complaints policy says that its investigations should be conducted impartially and fairly, seeking information from both parties before making findings. It was not fair that the resident was not given an opportunity to present her position in response to the evidence collated before issuing the warning. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to adopt its own policy and good practice dispute resolution by acting in a way that was procedurally unfair.
The resident raised with the landlord in her stage two escalation request that the effects of her mental health were relevant to the presentation of her behaviour. She also said that the issue of the behaviour warning caused a worsening of her mental health.
The landlord’s was required by its behaviour policy to be ‘mindful’ of a complaint’s disability. It was also under legal obligation to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed its mind to the resident’s cited disabilities or assessed its pre-existing knowledge of her vulnerabilities against its obligations. Even though the resident herself asserted a link to her disability in her stage two escalation, the landlord showed no consideration of the effects of her vulnerabilities and whether/ how these may have impacted her presentation. It did not take into account whether any reasonable adjustments may have been required to its approach under the behaviour policy when under review at stage two or indeed its complaint communications. There is no evidence demonstrating why the absence of regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities was reasonable in the circumstances.
This was a failure by the landlord to follow its behaviour policy and have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
In respect of the landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about its attitude and approach towards her, this Service has found a number of failings as detailed above that amount to maladministration. The landlord:
1. Failed to apply its policy, procedures or comply with its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 by its absence of regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities;
2. Unreasonably relied on flawed reasoning about the number of visits made to the property on 7 March 2022 and failed to address the full conduct allegations made by the resident or her request concerning interim local visits;
3. Unfairly failed to seek direct evidence relevant to the investigation and to put allegations to the resident before making adverse findings about her conduct;
4. Treated the resident in a heavy-handed and inappropriate manner by attending her home without notice and by its disproportionate findings of unacceptable behaviour.
This Service finds it appropriate to order compensation to acknowledge the identified maladministration. The resident was adversely affected by the landlord’s failings. Had the landlord followed its obligations, particularly in respect of her vulnerabilities, the potential for matters causing distress would have been significantly reduced. The failings left the resident without an appropriately reasoned answer to some of her concerns and requests, undermining the landlord/ resident relationship. The issues noted were expressed by the resident to have caused her distress and an impression that she was not being treated fairly. Compensation is awarded to recognise the avoidable distress caused to a vulnerable individual.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s installation of CCTV

There is no evidence that when the landlord considered the CCTV system or responded to the resident’s related concerns, it considered any safety or mental health related issues. There is reference on the background tenancy record provided by the landlord of safety concerns and the resident experiencing mental health issues. The resident in her stage two complaint explains installing CCTV for her safety and outlines the support it gives to her mental health. She adds that the threat of its removal seriously exacerbated her mental health.
The landlord’s response at stage two in response simply refers to the pending application for retrospective permission. It offers no consideration of its pre-existing awareness of these personal factors and how/if these were considered and balanced against its obligations concerning privacy. It offers no engagement with the resident’s concerns about its approach to enforcement against her sensitive personal background. Nor does it give any acknowledgement or offer of support or signposting concerning the cited escalating health concerns.
These were relevant factors to have informed the nature, tone and communication of the landlord’s approach, correspondence and appropriateness of enforcement action/ threats. There was a failure by the landlord to engage reasonably with its pre-existing or subsequent awareness of the resident’s mental health or safety concerns.
This is also a failure by the landlord to have regard to its obligations in the Equality Act 2010. The landlord is required to give consideration as to whether the resident has a disability as defined by law and consider whether its decision making/ actions could place her at a particular disadvantage as a result. The landlord is also required to make reasonable adjustments taking into account the resident’s disability. By its apparent failure to give any regard to these legal obligations, the landlord missed an opportunity to review whether potential mitigations could or should have been taken to its approach and communications in consideration of the resident’s mental health.
This Service has seen no evidence demonstrating why seven days and not a longer period was considered an appropriate deadline for the retrospective application for the CCTV system. The landlord’s cctv policy required the resident to be given a period of time that was ‘reasonable’. By its own admission, the landlord was already aware of the system’s existence and there was no emergency. In this context, such a short deadline with an associated threat of immediate removal was unreasonable. The landlord did not take any opportunity at stage two to review the appropriateness of the deadline or threat of removal. When then reviewed against the resident’s vulnerabilities of which it was already aware and further raised at stage two, the threat of removal of a security system within a week presents as heavy-handed and disproportionate.
The failings identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s installation of CCTV amount to maladministration. The landlord’s stage two response accepted it did not identify sooner that the resident required written permission for the system and apologised. It also granted retrospective permission within a timely period. This apology and action were insufficient redress for the failings identified. It did not go far enough. It failed to address the disproportionate nature of its enforcement threat or its failure to consider her personal safety and mental health or her cited distress, even after this was raised within the complaints process. This Service requires that compensation be paid to the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s stage one complaint response was provided 18 working days after receipt of the complaint. This was outside of the 10 working days timescale required by its complaints procedure. This Service notes in line with the Code, the landlord updated the resident in a timely manner that the investigation may be subject to delay and gave clear reasons. However, during the course of its contact on 15 March 2022, it assured the resident it would make further contact should it need to agree an extension. This further contact was not made as promised and lead to the resident chasing the landlord for an update. The resident expressed a resulting feeling that the landlord did not ‘care’.
While the landlord initially provided a clear update on potential delays and reasonably sought to manage the resident’s expectations, it failed to stick to a direct promise made of contact or comply with its complaints handling procedure to agree the extension. This lead to an expression of disappointment and disillusionment from the resident put to the time and trouble of chasing the landlord for the promised update.
The landlord’s responses at stage one and stage two failed to address a number of issues raised by the resident in complaint. A number of these have been considered above and are also relevant to complaint handling. This Service also notes no evidence that the landlord looked into or provided any full or reasoned response to the following matters raised by the resident in her complaint:
1. The threat of enforcement action: the resident specifically requested explanation;
2. The handling of the stage one investigation and manner of the stage one response as raised within her stage two escalation request.
The resident made repeat specific requests to the landlord expressing her desire to communicate with the landlord only by email or letter. Despite her clear requests, the landlord contracted her by phone on multiple occasions during the course of its stage one investigation.
The landlord’s failure to adopt the resident’s expressed preferred method of communication was unreasonable. There is no evidence on the landlord’s records to suggest why it was unable to communicate the same matters in writing. It is not clear in the evidence why the resident made this request, however it was one that was reasonable and could be easily accommodated. The resident had demonstrated she was responsive and contactable by email.
The resident in her stage two escalation request explained to the landlord that she found the contact to be harassing and that the calls caused distress. It is apparent that repeat calls to a vulnerable person against their expressed wishes was likely to cause some level of distress and give an impression that the caller was insensitive to their needs.
While it is noted that the landlord actioned the resident’s contact request towards the end of its stage one investigation after she repeated her request, it failed to acknowledge its prior failure. It failed to acknowledge that it had called her on multiple occasions despite her express wish that it not do so.
The landlord advised this Service it was unable to locate a copy of the meeting of 21 April 2022 held as part of the stage to complaint investigation. The landlord should retain records of evidence obtained and relevant accounts taken during the course of an investigation. This is a failure to maintain proper and appropriate record keeping.
This Service has found a number of failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint that amount to maladministration. It failed to follow good practice complaint handling and its own complaints policy and procedures. It failed to maintain adequate records. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation as redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns raised about its attitude and approach towards the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s installation of CCTV.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to concerns raised about its attitude and approach towards the resident demonstrated a number of failings and missed opportunities causing avoidable distress to the resident. It failed to give consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities as required by its policy, procedures and the Equality Act 2010. It unreasonably gave a flawed explanation to the resident about the number of visits made to her home on 7 March 2022 and did not fully address her allegations or her request about interim visits. It failed to seek relevant direct evidence in its investigation and unfairly made adverse findings about the resident’s conduct without putting the allegations to her. The landlord treated the resident in a way that was heavy-handed and inappropriate by failing to give advance notice of the visits on 7 March 2022. While the landlord drew on a number of reasonable conclusions supporting its issue of a behaviour warning, its other findings were disproportionate and this was also heavy-handed.
When requesting that the resident sought retrospective permission for her CCTV system, the landlord gave an unreasonably short deadline with an associated disproportionate threat of removal. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable but failed to take this into account contrary to its equality obligations. Even though the landlord accepted there was no emergency and it had been aware of the system for some time, it failed to further review the reasonableness of its actions against resident’s updated personal circumstances.
The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint as required by its complaints procedure in that it did not address all issues raised. It displayed poor practice communications with the resident by failing to stick to a direct specific promise of an update and failing to action her request re method of contact.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £700 compensation comprised of:
  1. £300 to reflect the distress caused to the resident by the failings identified in its response to her concerns about its attitude and approach towards her.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to her installation of CCTV.
  3. £200 to address the avoidable detriment by distress and time and trouble to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its current training offer on its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and how this impacts day to day communications with residents, decision- making and service provision;
2. Review its record keeping practices to ensure that accurate records are kept and maintained of complaint investigations and any requests made by residents about preferred method of contact.