Southern Housing Group Limited (202006100)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006100

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 March 2022

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:
1. implementation of its unacceptable behaviour policy to restrict the resident’s contact;
2. response to the resident’s requests for support;
3. complaint handling, including;
  1. refusal to consider the resident’s disrepair claim under its complaints policy;
  2. delays to its responses.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s:
1. call handlers not answering the resident’s calls;
2. call handler showing bias against the resident;
3. call handlers not being trained to communicate with people with autism.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaints set out in paragraph 2(a), (b), and (c), above, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident made complaints about telephone call handling which were addressed in stage one responses in June 2021, following which, the landlord acknowledged it had escalated this complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. This service has not been provided with any further communications relating to these elements of the complaint, nor is it evident that a stage two response has been issued by the landlord. It is also not evident whether the resident still considers these complaints to be in dispute given that his communication with this service relates only to the complaints noted in paragraph 1(a), (b), and (c), above.
As this service has not been provided with evidence that the call handling complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman will not consider this part of the complaint.
If the resident continues to progress these complaints through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, he may then be able to refer the complaints to this service.
A recommendation has also been made below that the landlord provide an update to the resident as to what stage these complaints are at within its internal complaints procedure.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 21 July 2008. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days, or an explanation and an indicative timescale will be provided when the response is delayed. The policy notes it does not cover issues that are subject to legal proceedings, such as disrepair claims.
The landlord operates a safeguarding policy. The policy notes that where concerns for the safety of a resident are raised, the landlord will make a referral to the relevant local authority. The policy also notes the landlord should seek the consent of the resident when sharing their information.
The landlord operates a reasonable adjustments policy. The policy notes that the landlord will aim to make reasonable adjustments to how it delivers its services to ensure residents with additional needs are not disadvantaged. Reasonable adjustments can include different approaches to communication with residents.
The landlord operates an unacceptable behaviour policy. The policy notes that unacceptable behaviour can include unreasonable or persistent demands, abusive phone calls, and aggressive or abusive behaviour. The landlord may restrict a resident’s contact in such instances. The policy notes that restrictions on contact will be reviewed on a monthly basis, however, this period could be longer depending on how long the restriction is put in place. Should it take this step, the policy notes a resident has the right to appeal this decision.
The landlord operates a customer care policy. This policy notes that where there had been unacceptable behaviour by a resident, it may implement a ‘tenant risk visual alert’. This may result in the landlord choosing to take action such as only visiting the resident in pairs. Visual alerts will be reviewed every six months. The policy does not note an appeal right for visual alerts.

Summary of events

Throughout the period of the complaint, there has been a large volume of correspondence between the parties, often with multiple written communications each day in which the resident expressed his ongoing concerns, and the landlord reiterated its position. This report will not refer to every communication but will instead provide an outline of the events which progressed the complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
It is not disputed that throughout the course of the resident’s tenancy, the landlord has issued warnings about the tone of the resident’s communication with its staff. This service has been provided with a number of historic communications relating to this issue, which also note that there have been occasions where the landlord has limited the resident’s communication to single members of its staff.
On 4 May 2018, the landlord advised the resident there was a visual alert in place and that for the safety of its staff, any visits by the landlord would be in pairs. The landlord confirmed it would review this visual alert every six months.
The resident has described himself as having autism. It is evident that on or around 20 June 2019, the resident made a request for direct support from the landlord in relation to his autism. The landlord replied on 4 July 2019 and advised that it did not provide direct support but would assist the resident in making contact with external agencies who could provide support. It noted it had previously attempted to arrange a meeting with the resident to determine how it could help, but that the parties had so far been unable to agree to a date.
The landlord went on to note that it considered the resident to have been verbally aggressive towards its staff, which had caused them distress. It also noted that the resident took up an excessive amount of its time and resources with frequent phone calls, which was having an impact on its service delivery for other residents. On this basis, it advised it was reintroducing contact restrictions, which included not being able to send emails, and only being permitted to call in certain circumstances, such as to report emergency repairs. Should the resident wish to communicated regarding any other issue, he was permitted to do so in writing to the landlord’s main office. The landlord advised these restrictions would remain in place for six months, at which point they would be reviewed. The landlord also reiterated that its offer to arrange a meeting to discuss referrals to support agencies remained open.
On 27 September 2020, the resident expressed his concern to the landlord about the ongoing contact restrictions. He queried whether there had been any review of these restrictions and questioned why he had not been informed of the process about how to appeal the restrictions.
On 28 September 2020, the landlord advised it had now reviewed the contact restrictions and had decided to lift them. On 18 November 2020, the landlord also confirmed that the visual alert requiring visits in pairs remained in place and that it would continue to review this every six months.
Throughout December 2020, the resident advised he did not believe the landlord was meeting its obligations regarding providing him with support. On 22 December 2020, the landlord confirmed it was treating his concerns as a formal complaint and would provide a stage one response in due course.
On 29 December 2020 and again on 6 January 2021, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction that he was still waiting for a formal response. The landlord advised on 7 January 2021 that it was still investigating the resident’s complaints, however, it did not include an indicative timeframe for its response. Between 8 January 2021 and 2 February 2021, the resident made multiple requests for an update and noted that the landlord had not formally advised him of what it was investigating. He subsequently requested that the landlord’s complaints handling be added to his complaint.
Following several further requests for updates from the resident, the landlord provided its stage one response on 25 February 2021. It apologised for the delay and advised it was experiencing a high volume of complaints which had caused the delay. It confirmed that contact restrictions had been removed but advised that should the resident’s communications once again become “excessive or disruptive,” it may reintroduce these restrictions. It noted that the resident had reported that following it removing the contact restrictions, some of his emails were still being blocked by the landlord’s server. It apologised this had been the case and advised that this was due to a technical issue, which had now been solved.
The landlord also noted the resident had raised concerns about ongoing repair issues and that he wanted the landlord to respond to this as part of its formal complaint response. It is evident that at this time, the resident was pursuing legal action in the form of a disrepair claim and had engaged solicitors who were actively corresponding with the resident’s legal representatives. This service has been provided with communications between the parties’ legal representatives regarding the disrepair case. As such, the landlord advised that it would be unable to comment on the repair issues while the disrepair claim was ongoing. It advised that should the resident be experiencing any further repair issues that were outside of the claim, it could make arrangements to attend to these.
Regarding its visual alert requiring visits in pairs, it confirmed this remained in place and would be reviewed every six months. It advised the most recent review had been in December 2020 and that it had determined to keep the alert in place.
Regarding support, the landlord outline that it had endeavoured to make reasonable adjustments for the resident, such as providing seven days’ notice prior to visiting the property. It also noted that following the resident’s comments in February 2021 that he considered himself at risk as a result of the issues that made up his complaint, the landlord’s safeguarding officer had been communicating with him about raising a safeguarding alert with the local authority. This service has been provided with communications between the resident and the landlord’s safeguarding officer which demonstrate its attempts to seek further information and the resident’s consent in order to submit a safeguarding referral to the local authority.
The landlord also noted that the resident had advised he believed he had signed a “support contract” with the landlord in 2008. The landlord noted it had sought further information from the resident about this document, but it had not received this. It advised that the resident was in ‘general needs’ accommodation, as opposed to ‘supported’ accommodation, and as such, the landlord did not have an obligation to provide direct support. Instead, it would provide referrals to external support agencies, which it advised it had previously attempted to do. It noted that “a number of these services have been unable to provide support due to non-engagement or outcomes not being agreed or identified.” It advised that if the resident required any further adjustments or specific support, to set out his requirements, following which the landlord would provide further assistance or make further referrals.
Regarding his complaint about its delays, the landlord advised that these were in no way specific to the resident and were not intended to be discriminatory. It advised that it fully upheld his complaint about its delays and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the impact of its service failure.
Following the landlords’ stage one response, the resident disputed that the landlord had provided him with support or made any reasonable adjustments. He also noted that the response did not address the landlord’s initial decision to restrict his contact, which he felt had been implemented unfairly.
Throughout late February and early March 2021, the landlord continued to liaise with the resident regarding a safeguarding referral to the local authority. This service has also been provided with the landlord’s communications with the local authority, and it is evident that in March 2021, the local authority rejected the safeguarding complaint on the basis that it related to complaints against the landlord, rather than matters that could cause a risk to the resident.
Following this rejection, in multiple communications, the landlord outlined how the resident could go about appealing the local authority’s decision. It also repeatedly offered to assist the resident with the necessary forms and also advised him to approach his legal representatives for assistance with this process.
On or around 3 March 2021, the resident provided the landlord with a document he considered to be the “support contract” he had referred to earlier. The landlord replied that this document was a ‘service preference form’, which was provided to the resident at the beginning of his tenancy to notify it of any specific needs for communication etc. in order for it to put in place any reasonable adjustments. It confirmed this document was not a contract in which it agreed to provide direct support and it reiterated that it could only refer the resident to external support agencies. To this end, it enquired if the resident wished it to refer him to adult social services for further support. The resident subsequently agreed and on 10 March 2021, the landlord confirmed it had made a referral to adult social services.
On or around 11 March 2021, the resident repeated his concerns, following which, the landlord confirmed it had escalated his complaint to stage two of its internal complaints procedure.
On or around 16 March 2021, the resident added to his complaint that the landlord had promised him compensation in relation to previous complaints, and for works to the radiators at his property. He also noted adult social services had contacted him but that they had declined to provide support on the basis he had not sufficiently engaged with their service.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 6 April 2021. It noted that the resident continued to request it address the issues that made up his disrepair claim, however, the landlord reiterated that it could not address this while a legal claim was ongoing. Regarding its decision to implement contact restrictions in July 2019, it noted that the resident had made unreasonable and persistent demands from the landlord and that it had correctly followed its policy when introducing the restriction. It acknowledged, however, that it had not included with its correspondence any information on how the resident could appeal its decision, nor had it correctly reviewed the decision after the first six months. It apologised that the stage one response had not addressed this and that it was increasing its offer of compensation to £100 to reflect the impact its service failure had had on the resident.
Regarding support, it advised it had reviewed the documentation provided to the resident when his tenancy began in 2008 and could not find any document relating to an offer of support. It also noted the resident’s concerns that its staff were not trained to deal with residents who had autism and advised that its staff received periodic training for residents with various disabilities and conditions, but that the content of its training would be reviewed to ensure it included autism.
Additionally, it confirmed that its earlier offers of compensation remained open and that the resident could provide it with the relevant information for payment in order to claim this. It concluded that it was happy to arrange a telephone call to discuss its response in further detail.
Following the landlord’s stage two response, the resident continued to reiterate his complaints and also noted additional concerns, such as dog noise around his property. On 14 May 2021, the landlord advised it had passed his concerns about dog noise to the relevant team and reiterated its request that the resident advise where to pay the compensation.
Following the landlord’s stage two response, the resident continued to reiterate his complaints, in particular, that the landlord was yet to provide a formal response under its internal complaints procedure regarding the disrepair issues. On each occasion, the landlord reiterated it was unable to do so while they were the subject of a legal disrepair claim.
The landlord also noted the resident’s concern that it sometimes took it a few days to respond to his emails and advised that this was due to his requests that specific staff members respond. It also reiterated it could arrange a meeting with the resident to discuss his concerns, and that it could make additional referrals to external support agencies if he was able to explain his specific needs. It also provided further examples of the reasonable adjustments it had made for him, such as not contacting him during specific periods in the astrological calendar at his request. It additionally reiterated it was still able to pay the compensation owed to the resident if he provided his bank details.
On 30 June 2021, the resident advised he was no longer represented by his former solicitors, and that he wished for the landlord to now consider the disrepair issues under its internal complaints procedure. The landlord acknowledged this in July 2021, however, it is not evident whether the complaint has now progressed.

Assessment and findings

Unacceptable behaviour policy

The landlord operates an unacceptable behaviour policy, in which it may restrict a resident’s contact following instances where there have been unreasonable or persistent demands on its service, abusive phone calls, or aggressive or abusive behaviour.
The Ombudsman considers it best practice when deciding to restrict a resident’s contact to provide specific examples of behaviour that led it to that decision, such as an email on a particular date. In its communication dated 4 July 2019 in which the landlord advised it was introducing contact restrictions, it gave more general examples of the types of behaviour exhibited by the resident without referring to specific instances. The landlord did, however, note that it had based its decision on the tone of the resident’s communications with staff, as well as the volume of communications. This service has been provided with examples of the resident’s communications from this period, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, contain language directed towards the landlord’s staff that it would be reasonable to consider aggressive.
Based on the above, while the landlord failed to initially address its decision to implement contact restrictions in its stage one response, its finding in its stage two response that the restrictions were implemented in accordance with its policy was reasonable.
The landlord’s unacceptable behaviour policy notes that when contact restrictions are introduced, they will be subject to regular review. The wording of the policy is somewhat unclear as to how frequently it will review its decision, referring both to monthly reviews, and also to longer periods between reviews where the period of the restriction is longer. It is not clear from this wording for what length of restriction a monthly review period is appropriate. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to consider rewording its policy to make it clear what the review period for restrictions will be.
In its communication to the resident in July 2019, the landlord advised it would review the contact restrictions every six months. It is not evident, however, that the resident was subsequently informed of the outcome of any review between the date the restrictions were implemented and his formal complaint in September 2020. It also not evident that any such reviews were carried out by the landlord.
Additionally, the landlord’s unacceptable behaviour policy notes that the decision to restrict contact can be appealed. An appeal mechanism is appropriate given that the restrictions make it more difficult for a resident to access the landlord’s services while they are in place. Neither the landlord’s communication in July 2019 which implemented the contact restrictions, nor its earlier communications relating to previous periods of contact restrictions contained any information about the right for the resident to appeal, or how to go about an appeal.
The resident made it clear in his complaint that he was dissatisfied that the landlord had not reviewed his contact restrictions within the timeframe promised when the restrictions were initially implemented. Additionally, he made it clear he was dissatisfied he had not been informed of his right to appeal.
The landlord failed to address either complaint in its stage one response, instead merely noting that the restrictions had now been lifted. Following the resident’s escalation of the complaint, in its stage two response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its initial letter implementing the contact restrictions had failed to include information about how to appeal its decision. It additionally acknowledged that it had failed to carry out the reviews of its decision within the timeframes it had promised. It also appropriately acknowledged it had failed to address this part of the complaint in its stage one response.
In its stage two response, based on the above, the landlord increased its earlier offer of compensation (which related to complaints handling, discussed below) by an additional £50. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its service failure and made an offer of redress, this offer is insufficient to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Despite having given the resident a reasonable expectation that its decision to implement contact restrictions would be reviewed, the landlord missed multiple dates on which it should have carried out a review of its decision, meaning the restrictions went on for over a year without a review. Additionally, while any appeal made by the resident may have been unsuccessful, the resident was nevertheless entitled to have his opinion on the landlord’s decision heard, which he was denied. While the landlord’s initial communication implementing the contact restrictions contained a high level of detail about how, and in what circumstances, the resident could continue to contact it, its failure to advise how to appeal its decision, along with its failure to review its decision in line with its policy, amounted to maladministration, and an increased amount of compensation is appropriate. Given the multiple instances it failed to follow its policy, an additional amount of £100 is appropriate in the circumstances.
A recommendation has also been made below for the landlord to consider reviewing its internal processes to ensure that any communication which notifies a resident of contact restrictions includes all the relevant information. This could be done by way of an internal checklist, or template communication.
Additionally, while not addressed in the stage two complaint response, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s visual alert for the resident, requiring it to visit in pairs, is still in place. Given that this measure does not limit the resident’s access to the landlord’s services, it was reasonable that there is no appeal process in the landlord’s policy relating to this measure. The landlord’s letter advising the resident of the visual alert does, however, also note that it will review this measure every six months. The landlord’s stage one response notes that this was reviewed and retained in December 2020, however, it is not evident that any further updates have been provided. A recommendation has been made below that it updates the resident as to the current status of the visual alert.

Requests for support

Neither the tenancy agreement provided to this service, nor the landlord’s policies and procedures note that it offers direct support to residents regarding any disabilities or specific support needs. The landlord’s safeguarding policy notes that where it is made aware of a safeguarding concern, it will make a referral to the local authority.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustment’s policy also notes that it will aim to make reasonable adjustments to how it delivers its services to ensure residents with additional needs are not disadvantaged. The Ombudsman understands that ‘reasonable adjustments’ do not include specific or ongoing support, but rather changes to how a landlord will approach its service delivery for residents with specific needs. This could include sending correspondence in writing rather than by email, or only telephoning after a certain time of day etc.
In June 2019, the resident requested that the landlord provide him with support relating to his autism. It is evident that he had made similar requests previously, and the same request is repeated in his correspondence throughout the period of the complaint. The landlord replied on 4 July 2019 and appropriately advised that it did not offer direct support, but that it could contact external agencies on the resident’s behalf. This response was in line with its policies, and it is evident that it had made such referrals previously, as it noted that the resident had previously not engaged with the external agencies. It is also the case that the resident’s requests for support have been general in nature, and so it was reasonable for the landlord to request a telephone call to discuss his specific needs so it could make more targeted referrals.
Given that the resident continued to make requests regarding support, it was appropriate that the landlord outlined its position again in its stage one response. It also appropriately articulated that it had made reasonable adjustments for the resident, and gave specific examples, such as extended notice prior to visits. Additionally, as the resident had expressed concern for his wellbeing due to the effects the issues that made up the complaint had had on him, the landlord appropriately advised that it was making a safeguarding referral to the local authority on his behalf. The landlord’s subsequent communications on this issue demonstrate that it sought specifics from the resident and also sought his consent to share the information, in line with its safeguarding policies.
The resident has advised that he believed he signed a support contract with the landlord in 2008. The landlord’s investigation into this concern was reasonable as it searched its documents for such a contract, and sought further information from the resident, but was unable to determine such a document existed. Following the resident later producing a document he considered to be a support contract, the landlord appropriately explained that the document was in relation to reasonable adjustments and not a contract for direct support. The landlord also appropriately provided further examples of the reasonable adjustments it had made, such as not contacting the resident during specific astrological periods.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord has reiterated its commitment to making referrals to external agencies on behalf of the resident, which included a referral to adult social services on his behalf. It is evident that neither this referral, or the safeguarding referral resulted in any ongoing arrangements and so it was appropriate that following the stage two response, the landlord again offered to make further referrals on his behalf.
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident expressed concerns about the landlord’s staff’s ability to deal with residents who have autism. The Ombudsman would expect that landlords provide relevant training to its staff periodically, and so it was appropriate that it advised the resident that this was the case and that it would review this training to ensure it covered autism. The landlord has also reiterated this commitment in its stage one response to the complaint relating to its call handlers, discussed above.
In summary, this service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest there is an obligation for the landlord to provide the resident with direct support in relation to his autism. Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord has repeatedly reiterated this in both its formal complaint responses and its ongoing correspondence. It has also repeatedly offered referrals to external agencies, in line with its policies.
It is evident, however, that the resident continues to desire ongoing support, and so a recommendation has been made below that the landlord again reaches out to the resident to enquire about his specific needs, and that it makes further referrals to relevant external agencies on his behalf.

Disrepair claim

Paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes that complaints which are the subject of legal proceedings are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman can, however, investigate a landlord’s communication regarding any complaints that are also the subject of legal proceedings.
The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will not consider complaints which are subject to legal proceedings under its internal complaints procedure. The policy specifically gives the example of a disrepair claim.
As part of its stage on response, the landlord noted the resident wished it to address ongoing disrepair issues at his property. It is evident, however, that the resident had engaged solicitors and was pursuing a legal disrepair claim at this time. As per its complaints policy, it was therefore reasonable that the landlord confirmed that it was unable to respond to those issues as part of its formal complaint response, and that it confirmed its legal representatives were liaising with the resident’s on this issue.
As with above, the resident has repeatedly raised concerns in his correspondence throughout the period of the complaint, that the landlord has not addressed the disrepair issues at his property in its complaint responses. On each occasion, the landlord has reiterated that it is unable to do so while a disrepair claim was underway.
Given the legal ramifications any comments made by the landlord may have on a disrepair claim, the landlord’s approach and frequent communications throughout the period of the complaint were reasonable and did not constitute service failure.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that as of June 2021, the resident has advised he is no longer legally represented. It is not evident whether this also means he has withdrawn the disrepair claim, and so a recommendation has been made that the landlord make such an enquiry and provide its position on a complaint response should the resident have withdrawn it.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes it will aim to provide a stage one response within 10 working days, or an explanation and an indicative timescale will be provided when the response is delayed.
Following the landlord’s advice in December 2020 that it was treating the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint, the landlord did not provide the resident with a specific timeframe for its complaint response. Instead, it used words to the effect of ‘in due course’. Even when it became clear that it would not be able to provide the response within the timeframes noted in its policy, it did not provide updated indicative timeframes, nor did provide the resident with an explanation for the delay.
Despite frequent requests for updates from the resident throughout January and February 2021, the landlord continued not to commit to a timeframe or provide a reason for its delays. In its stage one response, the landlord advised its delay was due to a high demand for its service but given that it had been able to provide responses to the resident that the stage one response would be provided shortly, it was clearly able to have advised him the reason for the delay which it failed to do.
This delay of over two months without explanation would have caused the resident distress and inconvenienced him due to the number of times he had to chase up the response. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord acknowledged this and offered an apology in its stage one response. It was also appropriate that the landlord offered £50 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances. The Ombudsman notes, however, that had the landlord not made such an offer, a finding of maladministration would have been made.
Throughout his correspondence with the landlord, the resident has also noted that previous offers of compensation had not been paid. On each occasion, the landlord has appropriately confirmed it is willing to pay the compensation and has requested the resident’s bank information in order for it do so, however, to date it does not appear this has been provided by the resident.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s correspondence on this matter to have been reasonable, however, in order to ensure the compensation is paid, a recommendation has been made below that the landlord reiterate its request for the resident’s bank information, or otherwise consider other options to pay the compensation, such as crediting the resident’s rent account.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint regarding the implementation of its unacceptable behaviour policy to restrict the resident’s contact.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s requests for support;
2. refusal to consider the resident’s disrepair claim under its complaints policy.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.
As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. the complaints about the landlord’s:
  1. call handlers not answering the resident’s calls;
  2. call handler showing bias against the resident;
  3. call handlers not being trained to communicate with people with autism.

Reasons

Unacceptable behaviour policy

Despite having promised to review its implementation of contact restrictions every six months, the landlord failed to do so for over a year. Additionally, the landlord failed to inform the resident of his right to appeal its decision.
The landlord also failed to address either issue in its stage one response, and while it offered an amount of compensation in its stage two response, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident amounted to maladministration, for which an increased amount of compensation was appropriate.

Requests for support

This service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord is required to provide the resident with any specific report. Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord has reiterated this to the resident, and has also made multiple referrals to external agencies, in line with its policies.
It has also demonstrated that it has made reasonable adjustments for the resident and has also continued to offer further referrals on behalf of the resident.

Disrepair claim

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will not consider complaints relating to ongoing legal proceedings, including disrepair claims, under its complaints policy. It is evident that during the period of the complaint, the resident was pursuing a disrepair claim, and so it was reasonable for the landlord to have advised it would not comment on this in its complaint responses. It also appropriately reiterated this advice in multiple communications throughout the period of the complaint.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s delay to providing the stage one response, along with its failure to provide the resident with an indicative timeframe or an explanation for the delay would have caused distress to the resident, and so it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its delay and offered compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to advise him of his appeal right in relation to its restriction of contact, and its failure to regularly review its decision to restrict his contact.
This compensation is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £50 which related to this part of the complaint made in its stage two response. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
1. an update as to what stage the complaints relating to its call handlers are at within its internal complaints procedure;
2. an update as to the status of the visual alert requiring visits by the landlord in pairs;
3. request that the resident provide information about his support needs and subsequently reiterate its offer to make referrals to relevant external support agencies;
4. request the resident confirm if he is continuing with his disrepair claim, and confirm its position on whether it can then consider this complaint under its complaints policy;
5. the landlord to reiterate its offer to pay all unpaid compensation, or otherwise offer to credit the compensation amounts to the resident’s rent account should he continue not to respond.
The landlord to consider rewording its unacceptable behaviour policy to make it clear how long the period between reviews of any measures taken under the policy will be.
The landlord to consider reviewing its internal processes to ensure that any communication which notifies a resident of contact restrictions includes all the relevant information, such as specific reasons for restrictions and guidance about how to appeal them.