West Kent Housing Association (202214975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214975

West Kent Housing Association

11 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to place a risk alert on the resident’s record.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property.
3. On 29 April 2022, two members of the landlord’s staff met with the resident so he could view and complete the sign-up procedure for his property. The resident arrived wearing a face covering and black sunglasses. He also wore the hood of his top over his head. He remained covered like this throughout the meeting with the landlord’s staff at the property. Following this visit, both members of staff submitted an incident report to the landlord stating that they had been made to feel uncomfortable by the resident. They described his demeanour and tone as aggressive and intimidating. The resident also revealed to them as they were leaving the property that he had been recording the visit, without their knowledge.
4. On 31 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, informing him that it had received a report from its staff regarding his conduct towards them, during their visit on 29 April 2022. This report included that the resident was aggressive and intimidating in the way he was dressed. It also said he was persistent and angry in his questioning of its staff at the property. The landlord also reported that he had refused to allow its staff to leave until he was satisfied they had answered all of his questions. The staff had also said that when he asked one of its members of staff to photograph rubbish in the garden; that he then shut the door on them and then obstructed the other member of staff from leaving the property.
5. The landlord asked the resident to be more considerate in how he communicates with its contractors and staff in the future. It also advised the resident that it was placing a ‘do not visit alone’ indicator to alert staff and contractors when visiting his address.
6. On 16 June 2022, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord about the letter it had sent him. He said the accusations against him were false and that a ‘do not visit alone’ indicator was not needed. The resident stated that the landlord and its staff should have shown more empathy towards its residents with mental health conditions. The resident also raised within his complaint that the landlord had put the incorrect postage on the letter it had sent him. He had to collect the letter from the local collection centre and wanted to be reimbursed for the cost and inconvenience.
7. In its stage one complaint response the landlord awarded the resident £12.50 to cover the cost of the incorrect postage, and for his travel expenses incurred in collecting the letter it had sent on dated 31 May 2022. It accepted that the resident disputed events which caused it to send him the letter about his conduct towards its staff. It also responded to a further complaint made by the resident that during a visit to his property on 20 June 2022, a member of its staff had lied to him about the reason he had accompanied two contractors when visiting his property. This staff member told the resident that they were at the property to carry out an audit and not for any other reason. But the resident heard them say, “I don’t know why they have asked me to come. If I had known there were two of you, I wouldn’t have bothered coming.” The landlord responded that the staff member in question had been sent for the following reasons:
   1. To carry out an audit.
   2. To accompany the contractor due to the alert flag being in place meaning that staff members could not attend the resident’s property alone.
8. The landlord accepted its member of staff should have been honest about their reasons for being at the property. It explained that this staff member had previously been advised not to inform residents when there was an alert on their file. The landlord stated that the alert on the resident’s file would not be removed.
9. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint. He said he had not been informed how long the alert would be in place and offered a solution of his mother being present for any future visits, to prevent the alert from having to remain in place.

10. At the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process, it informed the resident that it felt it had acted correctly but was sorry the resident remained unhappy. The landlord explained that its staff members had told it that they felt uncomfortable, unsafe, and nervous during the visit on 29 April 2022. The landlord explained that alerts are put in place so it can manage any risks to its staff and contractors. It did not require a consultation with the resident about the use of an alert. The landlord apologised for not clarifying the alert would be in place for 2 years and sent him a further letter, clarifying this. It also apologised that its staff member had been untruthful towards him about their attendance at his property which had partially been due to the alert being in place.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 19 October 2022. His desired outcome was for the landlord to apologise and for it to remove the risk alert on his file. He would also like compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and for the compensation to reflect that he states the landlord’s staff have not told the truth about the incident at the property on 29 April 2022.

Assessment and findings

12. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
13. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policy and procedure

14. The landlord’s staying safe at work procedure states it has a zero-tolerance statement in relation to abusive or violent behaviour. It defines any threatening or abusive behaviour towards any employee, however minor as an incident its employees are not expected to tolerate. By reporting these incidents, they are protecting their colleagues.

15. The landlord’s customer alerts policy states that an alert will be placed on a resident’s record, which informs its staff and contractors of any special circumstances that they need to be aware of when engaging with that resident. It has 5 categories and 1 of these is a ‘risk alert’. This alert is to be used when there is a potential risk to the landlord’s staff, contractors, other residents or to the resident themself. Where the decision is to apply a category of ‘risk alert’ any action taken will be determined by the landlord. All its decisions will be justified, authorised, proportional, auditable, and necessary. A resident can appeal the use of this alert through its complaints policy.
16. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. It has a two-stage formal complaint process. The landlord says that once it receives a formal complaint, it will provide a stage one complaint response within 10 working days. Following a resident’s request to escalate their complaint, it will provide its stage two response within 20 working days. At each stage the landlord may extend its deadline by 10 working days and will inform the resident if it is required to do this.

The landlord’s decision to place a risk alert on the resident’s record.

17. This service acknowledges the resident does not agree that his actions towards the landlord’s staff were as described in the letter he received on 31 May 2022. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened during an incident and a lack of independent evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened. The Ombudsman will, however, consider the landlord’s response to those allegations and whether its actions were reasonable in all the circumstances.
18. The landlord placed the ‘risk alert’ on the resident’s file after receiving an incident report from two members of staff who had jointly visited the resident on 29 April 2022. Both employees corroborated that the actions of the resident inside the property presented as aggressive and intimidating. It is not disputed that the resident was wearing a face mask, sunglasses and hooded top scrunched over his head throughout the entire visit. It is accepted that the resident later told the landlord he had been dressed like this for medical reasons. He did not wish to provide any further detail than this. The resident was not obliged to disclose medical information to the landlord. The resident was also aware at that time that he had been advised by the landlord, which it provided in writing that he was to wear a face mask, gloves and bring his own pen to the visit.
19. The staff members described the resident as breathing heavily at them, angrily asking persistent questions, obstructing one of them from leaving the property whilst telling them he would not let them leave until they had answered all of his questions. Based on this information, the landlord had a responsibility towards its staff and contractors as described above in its safe at work procedure. It was therefore reasonable after it had obtained the resident’s reports, and was in line with its customer alert policy, also described above, that it added the risk alert to the resident’s file.
20. The landlord complied with its appeal process in applying its ‘risk alert’ to the resident’s file. It provided an explanation to the resident within both its stage 1 and 2 written responses as to its reasons for not removing the alert, as well as its rationale for it applying it in the first place. It also provided accurate information by telling the resident that it was entitled to add this type of alert without consultation with him.
21. It was fair that the landlord apologised for not telling the resident in its original letter how long the alert would be in place. The landlord’s alerts policy states that it should tell residents when it adds an alert to a resident’s file. Although it does have discretion to withhold this information if it considers disclosing it would likely increase the risk.
22. The Ombudsman has considered and sympathises that the resident feels his mental health was not considered in adding the ‘risk alert’. It is recognised that the resident has a mental health condition but this in itself would not mean that the risk alert was added inappropriately. The application of the risk alert was put in place in order to alert staff to potential any potential risk to them for which the landlord is responsible for. Therefore, in this service’s opinion this alert was added in line with the landlord’s risk alert policy and was a reasonable action for it to take in these circumstances.
23. In its complaint response, the landlord acted correctly when it apologised for its service failure by paying the incorrect postage and reimbursed the resident for his transport costs to collect the letter. This was a reasonable and proportionate response by the landlord. It was also right that the landlord apologised and accepted that when its staff member attended the resident’s property on 20 June 2022, they should have been honest with the resident that one of the two reasons they were at the property accompanying the contractor, was due to the risk alert being on file. It is understandable that the staff member’s lack of honesty would have been distressing for the resident and may have caused him to lose trust in the landlord. However, the landlord’s explanation for how this issue occurred and its apology represent reasonable redress for this incident and the landlord is not required to do anything further.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about decision to place a risk alert on the resident’s record.