Places for People Group Limited (202300170)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300170

Places for People Group Limited

29 July 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

1. The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord has handled its offer of independent mediation.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in February 2014.
4. The landlord enforced a contact restriction against the resident for “excessive contact” in January 2020 for 12 months. Due to the deterioration in the relationship between the landlord and the resident, the landlord made an offer of independent mediation in November 2020 to try and resolve issues.
5. The mediation was not arranged due to the national lockdown in relation to COVID-19. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2022 regarding the landlord’s handling of the contact restriction, its offer of mediation and the landlord’s lack of communication. 
6. As the resident did not receive a response to his complaint, this Service made contact with the landlord on 28 June 2022, and requested it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 13 July 2022.
7. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 July 2022. The landlord stated that it had removed the contact restriction as the terms of the restriction had not been reviewed appropriately, however, the original decision and restriction had been implemented correctly. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint about mediation as it stated that a suitable alternative should have been considered and the offer of mediation should have been followed up once lockdown restrictions had been lifted. The landlord also apologised for the lack of response to emails sent by the resident in March and April 2022. The landlord stated this was due to the member of staff concerned leaving the organisation. The landlord acknowledged that an alternative colleague should have been allocated to respond to the resident. The landlord stated that its service had fallen short of expected standards and it offered compensation totalling £225 in recognition of the identified failures. This offer was made up of the following:
   1. £50 for its failure to review the restricted contact in line with its policy.
   2. £50 for its failure to respond to a letter sent by the resident in March 2022.
   3. £50 for its failure to respond to letter from the resident in April 2022 and   complaint made by him.
   4. £75 by way of an apology for in recognition of its repeated failures.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 July 2022. He noted that he was not sure whether escalation was the correct way to proceed as he was happy with the stage 1 response issued. He proposed two changes for the landlord to consider implementing in order to ensure tenants are treated “fairly” by the landlord. The suggestions made by the resident were in relation to the contact restriction that had been imposed on him. The resident stated that he felt the offer of mediation was “sabotaged” then “withdrawn” despite the landlord’s agreement that mediation would take place.
9. The resident sent the landlord a document titled ‘independent mediation’ in August 2022. The document listed outstanding issues from previous correspondence between the parties and included the following:
   1. The resident requested that the landlord to confirm decisions made by its staff members regarding access to windows at his property.
   2. That the landlord should have considered his tenancy record when it enforced the contact restriction upon him. The resident also sought confirmation from the landlord on whether it thought it fair to uphold the contact restriction despite the resident not being given an opportunity to challenge the decision.
   3. The resident sought answers on why specific staff members had “ignored” his letters.
   4. The resident sought answers on why the landlord had made reference to an incident with his neighbour in its letter to him dated 17 January 2020.
   5. The resident requested that landlord provide clarity on its decision making around categorising his reports of ASB as being an “unreasonable amount of contact”.
   6. The resident sought answers from the landlord on why there were different dates on identical letters that had been sent to him.
   7. The resident sought confirmation from the landlord as to its procedures around the provision of its policies relating to acceptable behaviour.
   8. How the landlord had processed reports made by the resident relating to ASB.
   9. How the landlord had responded to the provision of character references about the resident.
10. On 8 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the compensation offered at stage 1 had not been paid. Internal logs show that the landlord arranged for the compensation to be paid by 12 September 2022 following the resident’s email.
11. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2022 to inform him that it had extended the complaint response target date to 20 September 2022. The landlord also informed the resident that it would not be able to review all the elements of his complaint due to the issues being “historic”. The landlord quoted its complaints policy which stated that complaints must be raised within 6 months of the resident becoming aware of the issue unless there were special circumstances.
12. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 23 September 2022. The landlord upheld its findings at stage 1 and stated that it would not assess its handling of the contact restriction further as the Ombudsman had issued a determination regarding this. In relation to the landlord’s offer of independent mediation, the landlord apologised for not following up on the offer, however, after considering the relevance of mediation it did not deem it suitable as the members of staff concerned with the mediation had since left the organisation. The landlord apologised for the resident having to chase the compensation and stated that the payment should have been received by 21 September 2022.
13. The resident’s complaint was referred to an independent complaints panel for review on 30 September 2022. The panel was made up of volunteers and current tenants from a mix of landlords. A response was issued on 6 December 2022, the panel stated that the landlord’s finding regarding mediation was reasonable.
14. The resident continued to pursue the matter regarding independent mediation with the landlord following the panel’s response. He explained that as the entire dispute between the landlord and the resident had been recorded in writing, he could not see why mediation could not take place using this evidence. The landlord reiterated that while it acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction, it did not deem it practical to proceed with mediation and it was unable to keep revisiting “historical matters”. The landlord stated it was open to discussing how to help the resident due to the distress he was experiencing.
15. Following the completion of the internal complaints process, the landlord agreed on 25 May 2023 that it would arrange for a trained mediator to visit the resident to discuss and identify how to resolve the issues. The resident provided the landlord with details about his outstanding issues which largely replicated the issues raised previously and in the document provided in August 2022.
16. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 11 July 2024 that while it attempted to arrange a session with the resident and an internal mediator in an effort to give the resident an opportunity to be heard, this did not materialise at the request of the resident. The resident later contacted the landlord and requested it to address his remaining queries in writing as an alternative to mediation. The landlord stated a lot of the information the resident wanted it to consider was “historical” and its position on the matters had already been given.
17. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 11 August 2023. He stated that he wanted the landlord to investigate the landlord’s “blocking” of independent mediation in September 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

18. The resident had previously raised a complaint relating to the landlord’s decision to restrict contact with the resident in 2020. The Ombudsman has made a determination on this complaint under case reference 201915088. In accordance with paragraph 42 (l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to investigate matters which have already decided upon. This investigation therefore focuses on events from April 2022 to September 2022, when this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman has referenced events that pre and post-date this period for context.

The landlord’s handling of its offer of mediation

19. The landlord first made an offer of mediation in November 2020. The landlord did not follow through with the mediation due to the implementation of a national lockdown. While this Service acknowledges that a national lockdown would have prevented mediation between the resident and the landlord taking place face to face, the landlord should have considered alternative options to mediate, or if not available it is reasonable to expect that the resident be kept updated in order to their manage expectations.
20. There is no evidence to show that the landlord attempted to arrange or consider mediation again until the resident submitted a formal complaint about the matter. If owing to a change in circumstances, the landlord did not believe mediation was a suitable tool to achieve resolution, the landlord should have written to the resident and explained its reasons. It is unreasonable for the burden of responsibility to have fallen on the resident who due to the landlords failure to arrange and communicate appropriately, had to chase for decision on what was happening between the parties.. The landlord’s failure to arrange alternatives or follow up on the offer of mediation in a timely manner caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and contributed further to the deterioration in the landlord and tenant relationship.
21. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that it no longer deemed mediation as suitable means to resolution, as the members of staff concerned with the dispute had since left the organisation. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider whether mediation would be suitable and come to a decision on whether to proceed or not on the basis of that decision. Given that the issues the resident initially raised concerned matters dating back to 2019, and several members of staff who no longer worked at the organisation, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude mediation was not the most practical solution under the circumstances. However, as it was evident from the resident’s correspondence that he felt there remained outstanding issues, and  matters had not been resolved, it would have been a reasonable expectation for the landlord to have considered a face to face meeting to discuss the resident’s outstanding concerns, and assess whether any further action could be taken to resolve the matter.
22. The landlord appropriately identified the following failure’s with its service in its stage 1 response, and which it acknowledged again at stage 2:
    1. It failed to consider a suitable alternative to mediation during lockdown.
    2. It failed to follow up on its offer of mediation once lockdown restrictions had been lifted.
    3. It failed to respond to the resident’s email queries in March and April 2022.
    4. It failed to pass on the resident’s queries to another colleague after the member of staff the resident had been contacting had left the organisation.
23. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that it made an attempt to arrange for an internal mediator to visit the resident’s property in May 2023. While this was a significant period of time after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints process it evidences the landlord’s attempt to be supportive and give the resident agency to resolve any outstanding issues. Although the face to face mediation did not materialise due to unforeseen circumstances the landlord should have responded to the resident in writing as an alternative given that the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations that mediation at some level would take place.   
24. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
25. The landlord offered a total of £175 in recognition of the identified failures. Had the landlord not identified the above failures or made an attempt to put things right by making an offer of compensation the Ombudsman is likely to have made a finding of service failure and made a similar order of redress to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions and inaction. The compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, therefore, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s queries about the landlord’s offer of independent mediation.

Complaint handling

26. The landlord’s complaints policy states that ‘anyone’ can make a complaint. The complaints policy has two stages. At stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and issue a full response within 10 working days. At stage 2 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and issue a response within 20 working days of receipt. Where a resident remains dissatisfied, they can make a self-referral to the independent complaints panel.
27. The landlord’s policy also sets out that resident’s must raise their complaint within six months of when they first became aware of the problem unless there were special circumstances involved.
28. The landlord will apply the above time limit using its discretion, taking into account the seriousness of the issue, the availability of relevant records and staff involved, how long ago the events occurred and the likelihood that an investigation would lead to a practical benefit for the customer or useful leaning for the organisation.
29. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2022. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint until after this Service made contact with it in June 2022. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 July 2022. This was approximately 59 working days after the resident’s initial request and therefore 49 days outside of 10 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s policy.
30. Despite there being a contact restriction in place, the landlord should ensure that it has appropriate processes in place to ensure formal complaints are identified and acknowledged by its staff and responded to within the time scales set out in its policy. Residents should not be obstructed from submitting a formal complaint and having their concerns investigated and responded to. Being left without a response is likely to have made the resident feel as though his concerns were not being taken seriously. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its complaint responses that it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the failure.
31. Had the landlord not identified the failure or made an attempt to put things right by making an offer of compensation, this service would have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, £50 was a reasonable offer of compensation in consideration of the service failure that occurred. Therefore, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s queries about its offer of independent mediation.
33. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

34. It is recommended for the landlord to contact the resident and arrange a meeting regarding any outstanding concerns he may have and create a joint action plan on how best the landlord can support the resident to rebuild the landlord and tenant relationship.