Tandridge District Council (202014407)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014407

Tandridge District Council

20 June 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 handling of:
1. A neighbour dispute.
2. Works at the property following an occupational therapy recommendation.
3. Management of the scheme since it changed from sheltered accommodation to general needs accommodation.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is call 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, complaint 1c is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Within complaint correspondence to both the landlord and this Service, the resident has expressed concern about the management of the scheme, and a perceived lack of support, following the change from sheltered accommodation to general needs accommodation in 2019.
While the resident’s concerns about this are acknowledged, this is not a matter which has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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.”
Following our intervention in 2021, we asked the landlord to issue the resident with a formal complaint response regarding his concerns about services and a lack of support at the scheme. This request was sent under a new case reference (202107562) as the resident’s other concerns had already exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the landlord’s stage one complaint response, which was dated 15 July 2021. Towards the bottom of the letter, the landlord advised that if the resident remained unhappy, he could escalate his complaint to stage two of the process.
It is not clear if the resident has asked for his complaint to be escalated; however, at present, it has yet to exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, the resident’s complaint about the management of the scheme, and the services provided, falls outside of our jurisdiction and has not been investigated. If the resident remains concerned about the matter, he should notify the landlord accordingly.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord’s property since March 1999. The property is a one-bedroom, ground floor flat. The property was previously part of a sheltered scheme; however, this is no longer the case.
In February 2021, the resident contacted this Service to raise concerns about his landlord. The resident advised that his concerns began in 2020, and that of particular concern was the conduct of one resident, Mr K. It was not clear whether the resident had raised a formal complaint with the landlord; and as such, we provided him with advice about how to raise his concerns.
The resident subsequently raised a formal complaint on 5 March 2021 via the landlord’s online form. The landlord has advised that a response was issued on 10 March 2021; however, a copy of the resident’s original complaint and the response have not been provided to by the landlord.
On 19 March, the resident wrote to the landlord with a number of concerns. These included changes that had been made since sheltered facilities were withdrawn – and the resident’s concern about the impact of this. The resident also explained that he was dissatisfied with the time that had been taken to rectify the issue of an uneven step at the back of the property. He said:
1. Outside the backdoor, there were flagstones which had been roughly laid by a previous tenant. He had been finding these increasingly difficult to negotiate owing to his disabilities.
2. As there were no visiting wardens – as there had been in the past – he asked the works department, amongst others, for assistance. A housing officer eventually advised that she would speak to a named member of staff. However, the member of staff advised on three separate occasions that she could not assist.
3. Following this, he made the decision to contact Occupational Health himself. After an assessment was carried out, the matter was referred to the landlord’s Works Department and difficulties arose again. Initially the works sheet had the job listed incorrectly, and after approximately six months of further visits and enquiries, two small steps and a handrail were installed.
In relation to the neighbour dispute, the resident said:
1. Mr K had been withholding communal keys so that other residents could not access certain services. The resident explained that a new, general needs, resident had asked to use the laundry room and Mr K refused to help. He subsequently offered his own key, as he was aware that the laundry facilities were available to all residents.
2. Following the incident with the laundry room, Mr K refused to give him the key to the communal garden shed. The resident said that this contained some of his personal garden tools, which he wished to access. After the resident discussed the situation with another resident, Mr K “gave in”. However, rather than hand over the key, he accompanied him to the shed.
3. The resident found that some of his personal items were missing, but Mr K made no comment when he raised this. However, following this, Mr K continued to refuse to hand over the keys.
4. He was concerned about Mr K’s behaviour as he found him to be “aggressive”, and he was behaving in a manner that was causing problems for other residents.
5. Mr K had been supported in his behaviour by some members of staff, and this was of concern.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 26 March to raise additional concerns. These were largely in relation to problems and confusion that had arisen since the scheme moved from being sheltered accommodation to general accommodation. However, the resident also raised further concerns about Mr K. The resident said that Mr K was withholding keys, and deciding who should have access to them. In addition to this, he was requesting that shrubs and bushes be removed or cut down, for no apparent reason, and staff were honouring his requests.
The resident later contacted this Service on two occasions towards the end of March 2021,and advised that he had received a response from the landlord; however, he was unsure if it was a complaint response. The resident added that the correspondence did not address both of the issues he had raised. We therefore contacted the landlord on 23 April, and asked it to respond to the resident at stage two of its process if a stage one response had already been issued. We asked that it contact the resident as necessary to obtain details of his outstanding concerns.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 April. It said:
1. On receipt of the resident’s complaint on 5 March, it sent a stage one response on 10 March. This correspondence was therefore issued under stage two of its complaints process.
2. Having considered the resident’s concerns, it wished to respond as follows:

Installation of level access and handrail

Alterations and adaptations to properties were carried out in the line with its policy. The policy states that once agreed, works should be carried out “as quickly as reasonably practical”.
A recommendation was received from the Council’s occupational therapist on 26 November 2020. On receipt of the recommendation, an order was raised to form level step access and supply and fit a galvanised handrail.
The works to the steps were completed on 22 January 2021; and the handrail installation was completed on 19 February as materials had to be ordered for this work.
It was satisfied that from receipt of the recommendation, the work was completed in a “reasonable” time taking into account the time of year with the Christmas break, the weather and the pressures that Covid-19 had been having on the service.

Neighbour dispute

Having reviewed the records, it was noted that there was a history of dispute between the resident and Mr K.
It was noted that on 25 March, a visit was carried out by a Case Officer, during which she mediated between the resident and Mr K in relation to the use of the shared shed and communal laundry facility. As a result of the meeting, a letter was sent to all residents of the scheme.
It had not seen any evidence which demonstrated that Mr K had been treated more favourably or differently than any other resident.
It was satisfied that the service the resident had received was appropriate, and there were no grounds to uphold either aspect of the complaint. The complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure, and the resident could refer the matter to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

The resident informed this Service at the beginning of May that he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. The resident said that he was of the opinion that it took too long for occupational therapy to attend the property. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s comments regarding the neighbour dispute; and said that he did not consider that the landlord had adhered to its own policies and procedures.

Landlord policies and procedures

The landlord’s Complaints policy provides that residents may complain via an online complaint form, by email, by post, in person or over the telephone. If a resident is unhappy with the service they have received, they may make a stage one complaint. This will be acknowledged within two working days; and a full response sent within 10 working days.
Where a resident is unhappy with the stage one response, they can escalate the complaint to stage two for a review. Stage two complaints are reviewed by a member of the management team from a different service area. The focus at stage two is to consider whether the stage one process was undertaken fairly, and if the conclusions reached were reasonable. The response times at stage one are also applicable at stage two.
The landlord has an Aids and Adaptations policy which sets out the types of assistance available to disabled residents, or those with long term illness. The policy details the eligibility requirement, the types of works the landlord will approve, the circumstances where adaptations will not be carried out and the timescales relevant to the process.
Section 9 of the policy states that tenants must request a referral to an occupational therapist (OT) approved by Surrey County Council Social Services. The OT will assess the level of disability need, consider what works may be necessary and send their recommends to the landlord so that they can be processed in line with the policy.
In terms of timescales, the policy states that the landlord aims to deal with all cases “as quickly as reasonably practical subject to demand and budget availability”. It adds that it aims to ensure that no tenant waits longer than 12 months for an adaptation. OTs may categorise some works was “urgent”; and those will be carried out as quickly as possible, subject to budget.

Assessment and finding

Neighbour dispute

The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the landlord’s system notes in relation to the neighbour dispute, and the correspondence that was sent to resident’s following further discussion with Mr K and the resident. While the resident’s comments that it did not follow its policy are noted, there is no specific policy related to neighbour disputes. Although the landlord does have a policy relating to antisocial behaviour (ASB), the conduct of Mr K was not regarded as constituting ASB by the landlord. This was not unreasonable in the circumstances. As there is no relevant policy that is applicable, the Ombudsman has considered the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions.
Having reviewed the evidence that is available, the Ombudsman is satisfied that overall, the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports and concerns appropriately. Towards the end of 2020, it was noted that the resident had been trying to access the shed and that as it was locked it took three to four weeks for him to gain access to the shed and its contents. It was also noted that while Mr K did “help out” a lot, he on occasion needed a few days to hand over the keys – and this was contributing to the resident’s frustration.
Given the situation, and the continued frustration experienced by the resident, the landlord wrote to Mr K to request the keys so that copies could be cut. The landlord subsequently made the decision to retain copies and to advise residents that they could collect the keys – for both the shed and the laundry room – as required. However, an appointment would need to be made for the collection of keys and individual permission could be removed at any time if residents were abusing the facilities. This was a pragmatic way of trying to resolve the situation and address the concerns that had been raised by the resident.
It is noted that within the complaint correspondence, the resident had raised concerns that Mr K was requesting that trees and shrubs be cut down or removed, and that staff were honouring these requests. The resident had also expressed concern that some of his personal items, which had been stored in the shed, had gone missing. The landlord did not address either of these comments within its complaint response, and this was a failing in its complaint handling.
It is noted from the landlord’s records that the issue relating to plants being removed had been discussed between the landlord and the resident in March 2021. During this discussion, the resident had advised that he had planted lavender within the communal area, and that it was not dead – as Mr K had alleged. He therefore did not know why Mr K had instructed the gardeners to remove it. The notes show that the member of staff had asked the resident not to plant things within the communal area; but nothing further was said in relation to this. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this within its complaint response – and with reference to the resident’s tenancy agreement, if necessary.
It is not clear what action, if any, the landlord took in response to the resident’s concerns that his personal items had gone missing from the communal shed. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to advise whether this was something it could consider through its complaints process; and if not, what action the resident could take if he remained concerned. That the landlord did not provide such a response, left the resident’s concern unanswered.

Level access and handrail

When the landlord responded to the complaint, it advised of the date on which it received the OT recommendation, and the steps that it took following receipt. The landlord said that while the resident’s concerns had been noted, the installation of level access and handrail took place in line with policy timescales.
The landlord’s policy, as detailed above, states that works should be carried out as quickly as reasonably possible, and within a year. The evidence shows that the level access was completed within two months of the landlord receiving the OT report, and the handrail within three months. When it responded to the complaint, the landlord appropriately explained the factors that had affected completion – including the Christmas break, adverse weather and Covid-19 limitations – but advised that it was overall satisfied with its response. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence does not demonstrate a failing by the landlord in terms of completing the works, or that the works were unduly delayed.
While the level access and handrail installation were carried out within a reasonable timescale, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the difficulties he had experienced in trying to arrange for the occupational therapy assessment. Within his complaint correspondence, the resident had explained that he had tried to contact various departments, and a named member of staff, before eventually contacting occupational health himself. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which shows that the landlord investigated this; and it failed to address it when responding to the complaint. This was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review its records to see what enquiries had been made by the resident, and whether he had been provided with appropriate advice at the time. The landlord should have addressed the resident’s comments that he was left to contact occupational health himself; and should reasonably have provided some explanation about the process that should be followed as detailed in its policy. That the landlord did not take such steps was a missed opportunity to address some of the resident’s concerns; and a missed opportunity to put things right.

Complaint handling

As detailed above, the landlord’s stage two response to the resident’s complaint was lacking in detail. The response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour dispute should reasonably have addressed the issue regarding plants – and why staff had been removing them from the communal area; and should reasonably have addressed the resident’s comments that his personal items had gone missing from the communal shed. With regards to the resident’s concerns about the level access and handrail works, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the difficulties he had experienced in seeking or requesting occupational therapy involvement. It would have been reasonable to consider this further and to ascertain whether any changes needed to be made to ensure that residents can easily find out about the process and what help is available to them. The lack of detail within the landlord’s response demonstrates that there had been a failure to fully engage with the complaint and the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s stage one response to the complaint – or a copy of the resident’s original complaint of 5 March. It is not clear why this information was not provided by the landlord, as it was specifically requested by this Service as part of our formal information request. Without sight of the stage one response, it is difficult for this Service to assess whether the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s complaint was appropriate. However, it is noted that when the resident contacted us at the end of March 2021, he was uncertain whether the correspondence he had received was a complaint response, and he was unsure of what options were available to him.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It is also intended to create a positive complaint handling culture amongst staff and residents. The Code states that when a landlord responds to a complaint, it should make clear the following:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The complaint definition.
3. The decision on the complaint.
4. The reasons for any decisions made.
5. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. Details of any outstanding actions.
7. Details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
Given the resident’s comments and that the stage one response has not been provided to this Service, it has been inferred that the landlord’s stage one response did not include much of this detail. This was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. It should now take steps to ensure that staff are aware of the detail and information that should be contained within complaint responses, and that similar errors are not made in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works at the property following an occupational therapy recommendation.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute was reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence shows that the landlord noted the resident’s concerns about access to services and that it found a pragmatic solution to the problem. The evidence shows that the landlord’s handling of the works at the property following the occupational therapy assessment were overall appropriate.
The landlord’s stage two response to the complaint was lacking in detail and failed to address several of the points that the resident had raised. In addition, the evidence suggests that the landlord failed to appropriate label its stage one response to the complaint, and that the resident was not provided with information about what he could do if he was unhappy with the response he had received.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
3. Review the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and issue a reminder to staff about the importance of including certain information within complaint responses.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should review the information that is available to residents regarding the aids and adaptations process and whether this is sufficiently clear and accessible by all. The landlord should share the outcome of this review with the Ombudsman.