London Borough of Harrow (202205620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205620

London Borough of Harrow

14 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:

The resident’s concerns about the behaviour of a member of staff;
The resident’s concerns about anti-social behaviour (ASB);
Incidents that had affected the resident’s representative;
Concerns on behalf of other residents:
Concerns about an adult safeguarding investigation carried out by the local authority and the delay and outcome of an occupational therapy assessment;
The resident’s concerns about the issuing of a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP).

The report will also look at the landlord’s complaint handling.

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, this service 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, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s response to incidents that had affected the resident’s representative;
The landlord’s response to concerns on behalf of other residents;
The landlord’s response to concerns regarding about an adult safeguarding investigation carried out by the local authority and the delay and outcome of an occupational therapy assessment;
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the issuing of a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP).

The person representing the resident (a family member but not a tenant of the sheltered housing scheme), raised a number of concerns regarding matters that had affected her rather than the resident. These included issues around parking, damage to her car, the behaviour of some residents and staff towards her, and allegations made to social services about her.
Paragraph 25 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the following people can make complaints to the Ombudsman about member landlords:

A person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord. This includes people who have a lease, tenancy, licence to occupy, service agreement or other arrangement to occupy premises owned or managed by a member; if the complaint is made by an ex-occupier, they must have had a legal relationship with the member at the time that the matter complained of arose;
an applicant for a property owned or managed by a member;
a representative of any of the people above who is authorised by them to make a complaint on their behalf;
a representative of any of the people above who does not have the capacity to authorise a representative to act on their behalf. The Ombudsman must be satisfied that the representative has the legitimate authority to act on the person’s behalf;
a person with authority to make a complaint on behalf of any of the people above who is deceased.

As the representative is not in a landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord, she does do not meet the requirements of Paragraph 25 of the Scheme and therefore the abovementioned concerns are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The representative has also raised a number of concerns on behalf of residents of the housing scheme other than the resident she is representing. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority. Although the representative has provided the Ombudsman evidence that her family member (the resident) has given consent for her to represent her, there is no evidence that any of the other residents have given their authorisation for her to act on their behalf. Therefore, any concerns that have been made by the representative on behalf of any of the other residents in the housing scheme are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The representative raised concerns about an adult safeguarding investigation that falls under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014, and about the council’s delay in carrying out an occupational therapy (OT) assessment, and the outcome of the assessment. As these services fall within the remit of social services, these aspects of the representative’s complaint are better suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO can consider the resident’s concerns about how the council handled a safeguarding investigation, along with delays and outcomes of OT assessments.
The representative raised concerns to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s reasons for issuing a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP). The evidence shows that the NSP was issued following the conclusion of the stage two complaint, which means the landlord had not had an opportunity to investigate those concerns as a formal complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Ombudsman Scheme, this service will not investigate complaints that are “made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. If the resident remains dissatisfied with this issue, it is recommended that she raises a formal complaint to the landlord. She may then refer this matter to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied, and once she has received the landlord’s final response to her concerns.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one bedroom property on the first floor of a sheltered housing scheme. Her secure tenancy began in November 2020.
The resident is recorded as having arthritis. In addition, English is not her first language and her representative has reported that she is unable to read or write in English.
The resident’s complaint is being made on her behalf by a family member, who will be referred to in this report as ‘the representative’. She is not one of the residents of the scheme.

Legal and Policy Framework

The landlord’s ASB policy states that its main aims include the use of early intervention to avoid ASB escalating, making it easy for residents to report ASB, being clear about how the landlord will manage ASB cases and be transparent about its decision-making processes, and providing clear expectations to complainants and perpetrators.
The landlord states that it adopts a victim-based approach, where cases may be dealt with differently depending on the wishes and needs of the victim. Investigations will start at the earliest opportunity after receipt of the complaint and be conducted with all reasonable speed.
The ASB policy states that, in cases of disputes between neighbours, if there is a possibility of effective mediation, this will be offered as a reasonable solution. Among the tools the landlord uses to try and resolve ASB, are mediation and good neighbour agreements, which are agreements arrived at in consultation with a group of neighbours to promote respect and tolerance in a neighbourhood.
Under its Complaints Policy, the landlord operates a two stage formal complaints process. It acknowledges both stage one and stage two complaints within three working days and provides a full written reply to stage one complaints within 15 working days. Stage two complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The Complaints Policy states that the landlord will, where appropriate, accept complaints from advocates or third parties, provided that the person affected has given their written consent. It also states that, under the scope of its policy, complaints will generally include allegations about unhelpful or insensitive attitude of an employee. The aims and objectives of the policy include providing an accessible means to all its residents who wish to express either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a service they have received.

Summary of events

On 10 June 2021, the representative wrote to the landlord and stated the following:

An occupational therapy (OT) assessment had been outstanding since 21 December 2020 and the resident’s kitchen and bathroom taps had still not be changed to mixer taps.
She stated that, when the resident first moved in, there were one or two other residents who were charging for parking and for using the garden. She said that those who did not contribute towards a communal garden charge were not allowed in the garden.
The representative said that, on 7 June 2021, the resident sat in the garden, away from the plants, and another resident aimed a hose pipe directly at her and made all the seats wet so nobody else could sit there.
She reported the incident to the to the scheme co-ordinator the following day, who told her she was busy and could not look into the matter.
She claimed that some residents were ‘being bullied’.

The representative wrote again to the landlord on 6 July 2021 to raise a stage one complaint, in which she stated the following:

Two of the residents were secretly collecting money for the garden, which was why some of the others were uncomfortable sitting in it.
She stated that, since the scheme co-ordinator joined, she only listened to some residents and did not treat everyone equally.
The scheme co-ordinator was too busy to help some residents and did not check if communal services were working properly. She said that, when both lifts broke down, the scheme co-ordinator did not know how to operate the stairlift, which had also been in need of repair for 18 months.
Whenever she was on site, she told residents it was not her job to report repairs or help with laundry.
She stated that. when the resident said that a neighbour had witnessed the incident with the garden hose, the scheme co-ordinator ‘called her a liar’. The representative said that the resident was sitting in view of the CCTV camera and that the landlord should check it.
The representative alleged that one of the neighbours had bribed the scheme co-ordinator with food, which made her favour some residents and neglect her duty of care towards others.
She said that the rubber around the communal washing machine area was a trip hazard and had been reported to the scheme co-ordinator many times over the last year, but nothing had been done.
She attached various documents, including a list of 13 signatures from residents, and photographs she said provided evidence of fire exits being blocked by residents.

The landlord responded on 12 July 2023, stating that the representative’s complaint had been noted. It also provided the resident details of an allegation that had been made against her. It said that she had used ‘threatening and abusive language’ towards a vulnerable neighbour who, as a result, was too afraid to leave their property. The allegation stated that the resident had befriended her neighbours and had coerced and manipulated them into giving her money, ‘ranging from £25-£250’. The landlord alleged that the resident’s representative; who is a family member, was pretending to be the resident and had asked others to sign a petition. It added that most of them did not speak English and had ‘no idea’ what they were signing.
The landlord wrote again on 14 July 2021 to acknowledge the stage one complaint and said it would aim to provide a response by 26 July 2021.
The representative wrote to the landlord on 14 July 2023 and alleged that the scheme co-ordinator had threatened her family member (the resident)and some of the other residents for signing a petition, and had called the police.
The landlord wrote back to the representative on 27 July 2021 to say that it had tried calling her to arrange an interview as part of its investigation. It asked her to let it know when she would be free so it could ask her some questions about the incidents she had described. It added that, as it was still waiting for important information, it would not be able to provide a response at the time but would aim to finish its investigation within the following two weeks.
The landlord wrote to the representative on 7 September 2021 to say it was in the process of finalising its investigation concerning the scheme co-ordinator and had finished interviewing those involved in the case, with the help of an interpreter. The representative replied on 13 September 2021, stating that, since the scheme co-ordinator had started working there, she had not treated all residents equally and had been bribed with free food by four of the residents in the scheme.
The representative wrote again to the landlord, on 27 September 2021, to say that the scheme co-ordinator had been ‘spreading rumours’ that her family member (the resident) was a ‘troublemaker’ and that she should not be spoken to. She added that nobody from the repairs team had contacted her and that there were several repairs that remained outstanding, which she said was all down to favouritism by the scheme co-ordinator.
The landlord wrote back on 1 October 2021 to explain that there would be further delays in its response and that these were due to its need to conduct additional interviews. It confirmed that its repairs service would be installing mixer taps in the resident’s property and that there was no evidence to substantiate the representative’s claim that the scheme co-ordinator had shown favouritism towards certain residents. It assured her it would send its complaint response the following week.
On 8 October 2021, the landlord wrote again to say it was in the process of finalising its complaint response, that it would send the response out the following week and thanked the representative for her patience. On 12 October 2021, the representative wrote back to the landlord to thank it for arranging repairs to the resident’s flat, which she said were complete. She stated that, whenever the scheme co-ordinator had accompanied the investigating officer, during her stage one investigation, the residents had felt intimidated and threatened. She stated that, if the landlord genuinely wanted to help, she suggested appointing an independent interpreter rather than using the scheme co-ordinator.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord sent the representative its stage one response, which stated the following:

After interviewing some of the residents in the sheltered housing scheme, the landlord had established, with the help of an independent interpreter, that the petition the resident and her representative had asked them to sign was about communal facilities, the broken lift and other repairs. The landlord stated that the petition did not relate to the removal of the scheme co-ordinator or to the eviction of one of the other residents. It added that the residents who signed the petition felt misled.
The landlord listed the other matters the representative had raised and stated it would conduct its own investigation into those issues and liaise with the relevant residents.
It confirmed that the lift was back in use and fully operational.
It stated that, due to data protection regulations, it would not be able to provide the representative with CCTV footage.
The landlord stated it was concerned that the representative frequently met with residents and then reported issues regarding their homes. It said that it did not have any documentation to prove the representative had the legal right to represent her family member (the resident) or the other residents at the scheme. It asked the representative to refrain from approaching those residents about their concerns and to stop ‘making unfounded allegations’ against the scheme co-ordinator.
It stated that it wanted to create a “harmonious living environment, built on trust and confidence in service delivery; rather than hostility and intolerance, which is currently creating a bad atmosphere” within the scheme.

The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the representative’s stage two complaint or details of when she had raised it, but the records indicate that she had raised the following concerns.

There was no safeguarding at the scheme.
The scheme manager and her line manager had intimidated the residents who signed the petition.
It took six months for the landlord to respond to the representative’s complaint.
The representative felt that the person investigating the complaint had also attended a planning meeting and that this was a conflict of interest.
The representative believed she had been misidentified as her family member (the resident).
The landlord was inconsistent in the way it applied data protection regulations.
It said that unannounced visits by the landlord constituted harassment.
The scheme co-ordinator failed to capture an incident on CCTV.
The landlord had made false allegations against the resident’s representative.

The landlord wrote to the representative on 17 November 2021 with its stage two response, and stated the following:

The landlord did not agree that there was no safeguarding at the scheme. It explained that the staff involved in running the housing scheme worked collaboratively to safeguard residents, along with council services such as the adult social care department, Careline (a personal alarm service) and external emergency services, such as the police.
It had carried out a thorough investigation into the petition and found no evidence that the scheme co-ordinator or her manager intimidated residents during their visit. It added that the investigation was carried out using an interpreter and also included phone calls. The landlord reiterated that the residents had acted on trust and felt misled about the petition. The landlord stated that, “the residents thought the petition was about repairs issues only, including the lift being out of use for a lengthy period”.
It stated that it received the representative’s complaint on 6 July 2021 and sent its response on 15 October 2021, which meant it took just over three months rather than six months to complete. It said that the complaint was ‘very complex’ and required an, “in-depth investigation into historical reports, as well as conducting interviews including interpreting those interviews”. It added that, “the complaint took longer than expected to complete due to the seriousness of the allegations”.
The landlord said it had kept in regular contact with the representative and answered several queries in the meantime. In addition, the representative had raised additional concerns after the landlord had received the initial complaint and, together with the complexity and seriousness of the complaint, this meant it was unable to respond within 10 working days.
The landlord stated that the complaint investigator attending a planning meeting with a member of the council’s safeguarding team was not a conflict of interest as the investigator was responsible for all the residents in the scheme. It stated that there was no evidence the scheme co-ordinator had tried to coerce the resident in any way and that it was aware social services were conducting their own investigation into the representative’s allegations.
The landlord had expressed concerns about the representative ‘frequenting’ the communal lounge and talking to other residents. It assured her that the investigator had not misidentified her because she was seen by people who know both her and her family member (the resident) and she remembered that the representative had emailed the landlord to raise repair issues on behalf of other residents. The landlord stated that, “this presented a question as to whether you (the representative) had any legal authority to represent residents in the block” including her family member.
The landlord stated it did not provide CCTV footage to members of the public and that it was not inconsistent in following its “legal obligation under GDPR regulations”. The landlord added that it was prohibited from discussing matters concerning other residents with the representative without their permission.
The landlord stated that the unannounced visits by social services did not constitute harassment and that social workers were entitled to see their clients as part of their role. It added that there was, “no basis to believe or prove that there is a conspiracy or collusion with residents in the block” and reiterated what it said in its stage one response, which urged the representative to refrain from approaching residents about their concerns and, “cease making unfounded allegations” against the scheme co-ordinator.
It stated that the police can request CCTV footage but that it was unaware of an assault reported by the representative that had been captured by its CCTV camera.

Post-complaint

The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 April 2022 with a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP). It stated that, “some very serious concerns had been raised, which needed to be addressed and, “are having a detrimental impact on residents at our sheltered housing scheme”. The landlord added that it had made an appointment for 21 April 2022 to discuss the NSP with the resident and that it would arrange for an independent interpreter to be present.
The representative replied to the landlord on 14 April 2022 to acknowledge receipt of the NSP, enclosing a letter that she stated was the resident’s consent for her to act on her behalf. The representative said that the stage two response was ‘substandard’ but that the resident, “chose not to respond as she wants to live in peace and quiet”.
The landlord responded on 27 April 2022 to say that it strongly urged the resident to attend an interview where an independent interpreter would be present. It explained that the purpose of the interview was to provide an opportunity for the resident to respond to the allegations listed in the NSP. It added that the meeting would also allow it to explore resolutions, including mediation.
The landlord wrote directly to the resident on 1 August 2022 and stated that, since the commencement of her tenancy, there had been several allegations and counter allegations made either by her, her representative or other residents, which required investigation to ‘ensure the safety and wellbeing of all residents living’ at the housing scheme. The landlord stated that it wanted to offer, ‘an alternative scheme’ that the resident would ‘be better suited to’ and asked that the resident responded by 8 August 2022 to let it know if she would consider its offer.

Assessment and findings

The behaviour of a member of staff

Although the landlord stated that it had carried out an investigation into the resident’s complaint, which took around three months to complete, the response failed to address the concerns the representative raised about the conduct of the scheme co-ordinator. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had carried out a proper investigation into those concerns or that it gave the representative’s claims due consideration.
The only evidence available to show the landlord had contacted the scheme co-ordinator was an internal record, where it asked the scheme co-ordinator to comment on the claim made by the representative that some residents were charging residents for using the garden. It is not evident that the landlord had interviewed the scheme coordinator about the complaints made against her as part of its complaint investigation.
The landlord should have considered all the complaints on behalf of the resident to be legitimate, prior to establishing the facts. Instead, it appears to dismiss the representative’s allegations and asks her to, “cease making unfounded allegations against” the scheme co-ordinator. However, there are no records to show why the landlord had concluded that the allegations were unfounded or why the landlord had arrived at that conclusion. Although the allegations may have been unfounded, the landlord failed to provide any evidence that it had looked into those matters. This was inappropriate given the seriousness of those allegations and the vulnerability of residents in the housing scheme.
Apart from the landlord stating in its holding responses that it was conducting interviews, there is no evidence of interviews with residents, with the scheme co-ordinator herself, or details of any enquiries into the claims that the scheme co-ordinator failed to report repairs or provide appropriate support when asked to do so. The landlord would have been able to establish whether there were delays in reporting repairs by looking at the appropriate records, such as the repair logs.
The failure to provide the resident with any assurances that it had conducted a proper response to the resident’s allegations, coupled with the landlord’s failure to address those allegations in its response, indicates that it did not provide the resident with an accessible means to express either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a service she had received. This is contrary to the aims of the landlord’s Complaints Policy. In this respect, the landlord failed to follow its policy, which amounts to maladministration.

ASB

It is relevant for the Ombudsman to acknowledge, at the outset, that ASB cases involving allegations and counter-allegations over an extended period of time, sometimes with little or no corroborating evidence, can be among the most difficult and intractable for a landlord to resolve. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important that the Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
The landlord acted appropriately in using an independent interpreter as part of its investigation; however, it is unclear whether the landlord had properly investigated the alleged assault on the resident in the garden. There are no records to indicate whether the landlord had looked into the matter, whether it had looked at the CCTV footage that the representative had alluded to or whether the scheme coordinator was properly questioned about the incident.
The landlord was at fault for not mentioning this incident in its complaint response, and for not responding to other matters where the resident was the affected party. The result of sidelining this issue and focusing instead on the resident and her representative’s actions and behaviour was that the investigation would have appeared one-sided. This would only have sought to reinforce the representative’s belief in a culture of favouritism at the scheme. In addition, references to the resident being a ‘troublemaker’ and a ‘liar’ suggests that the resident was being painted by staff as being the cause of the problem.
It was also inappropriate that the landlord sought to use its complaint response to bring up concerns it had about the resident’s behaviour. The purpose of the complaint response is to respond to the resident’s concerns. Any concerns the landlord had about the resident or her representative should have been treated separately from the complaint process and through separate communication.
A more balanced approach, where all aspects of the complaint were properly looked into would have helped assure the resident that the interests of all the residents were being served equally. The resident’s belief that she was the victim of favouritism would have been compounded by the landlord’s subsequent actions, including the suggestion that the resident moved to a different scheme. The landlord’s heavy-handed and unbalanced approach demonstrated that it did not conduct a fair investigation into the resident’s concerns.
It is clear from the evidence there had been a history of friction and animosity between some residents in the sheltered housing scheme and that allegations and counter-allegations by the resident and her neighbours had led to what the evidence indicates was an atmosphere of division between different groups of residents. It is recognised that this can have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of those living there, particularly given that the scheme houses elderly and vulnerable residents.
There was no evidence that the landlord took any prompt or meaningful action to try and resolve those tensions, such as arranging mediation. The records indicate that the landlord had access to an independent interpreter, whose services could have been used in order to both promote and support mediation sessions between the residents. Of course, mediation is only possible with the agreement of the intended participants and there was no certainly it would have been successful. However, there is no indication that mediation was offered at any point prior to the landlord issuing its stage two complaint response.
The landlord’s failure to take appropriate action is contrary to its ASB policy, which states that, “its main aims include the use of early intervention to avoid ASB escalating”. The landlord could have, at an early stage, considered the tools that were at its disposal, as listed in its policy, such as mediation and good neighbour agreements. The landlord could have been able to monitor a good neighbour agreement to ensure residents were complying with the terms and offer additional support if and when required.
Similarly, there is no evidence the landlord had considered putting an action plan together in order to help monitor the situation, agree regular catch-up meetings and to put timeframes in place for incremental interventions, that may have helped defuse the tensions between the resident and her neighbours. The lack of an incremental approach by the landlord in suggesting the resident move to a different housing scheme before even exploring mediation was inappropriate.
It is unclear why the landlord did not explore the available options at the outset or follow the appropriate steps following the ASB reports, as this could have helped prevent matters from escalating and also prevented causing additional distress to those affected. The failure to adopt a proactive approach or seek to calm the tensions between the resident and her neighbours within the scheme at an earlier stage, and in line with its ASB policy, was maladministration.

Complaint Handling

In her stage one response, there were a number of concerns the representative raised on behalf of the resident where the landlord responded by saying: “Thank you for informing us of this. We will conduct our own investigation, which will look at the concern you have raised and liaise with the relevant residents accordingly”.
The complaints related to the blocking of fire exits, a trip hazard in the washing machine area, the resident being charged for using the garden and concerns about the scheme co-ordinator. It is unclear whether the landlord conducted an investigation into those matters, or why it failed to follow up the stage one response and write back to the resident with the outcome of its investigations. The landlord’s failure to follow its Complaints Policy and provide a proper, substantive response to the concerns the resident raised in its stage one complaint constitutes maladministration.
It is understandable that there will be delays responding to complaints that are particularly complex. The landlord acted appropriately when it kept the representative informed throughout its stage one investigation, and agreed new target timescales when it was unable to respond by a certain date. Given that it had taken a long time to provide a response, the landlord could have provided an apology for the delay in its response.
The landlord was at fault for not seeking written consent from the resident before accepting the stage one complaint. In its response, the landlord states, “we do not have any documentation to prove that you have the legal right to formally represent” the resident.
It is unclear therefore why the landlord did not ensure the resident was happy for the representative to act on her behalf before it started its investigation. The evidence shows that the landlord had visited the scheme and that an independent interpreter was available. It could have approached the resident directly to establish whether she was happy that a complaint was being made on her behalf, or provided the means by which she could provide written confirmation.
Before a formal complaint is accepted by a third party, the landlord should first seek consent from the resident and make a record that consent was gained. It is noted that the representative later provided proof of consent but this was after the stage two complaint was issued. The landlord’s failure to follow good practice in relation to data protection or its Complaints Policy amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of a member of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with Paragraph 25 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to incidents that had affected the resident’s representative was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to concerns on behalf of other residents was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to concerns regarding an adult safeguarding investigation carried out by the local authority and the delay and outcome of an occupational therapy assessment was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint regarding the resident’s concerns about the issuing of a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP) was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was unable to demonstrate or show any evidence that it properly investigated the resident’s concerns regarding the member of staff’s conduct and failed to address the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses.
The landlord failed to properly address tensions between residents within the housing scheme or respond with any promptness to reports of ASB to prevent matters from escalating. It did not consider offering mediation or any other approach to address the ASB problems at an early stage and it did not agree an action plan or adopt an incremental approach in dealing with allegations and counter-allegations from residents. The landlord instead took a heavy-handed approach and suggested moving the resident to an alternative scheme before attempting less severe interventions.
The resident’s representative was not a resident of the housing scheme and therefore was not able to bring a complaint to the Ombudsman about issues that affected her.
The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints from third parties on behalf of residents without their consent.
As complaints about the services managed by the local authority’s adult social care function fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, complaints about those services are not considered by the Housing Ombudsman.
The landlord issued the resident a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP) after it had issued its stage two response. The landlord had therefore not had the opportunity to address the resident’s complaint about the NSP. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider this complaint before the landlord has investigated the matter.
The landlord failed to follow its Complaints Policy when it accepted the representative’s complaint without seeking written consent from the resident. Although the landlord used the services of an interpreter to investigate the resident’s complaint, it did not consider using the interpreter to ensure the resident was happy for the representative to act on her behalf. The landlord could not demonstrate that it investigated the resident’s complaint about an alleged assault, along with other concerns raised at stage one, and therefore failed to provide a proper response.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £300 for its failure to properly investigate her complaints about a member of staff.
The landlord to pay the resident £400 for its poor response to the resident’s ASB reports and for failing to take appropriate action to prevent escalation of tensions within the housing scheme.
The landlord to pay the resident £300 for its failure to respond to her complaint and its poor complaint handling.
The total compensation amount of £1000 must be paid within four weeks of receiving this determination.
A senior member of staff to apologise to the resident, within four weeks of the date of this determination, for the failures identified in this report.
The landlord to speak directly to the resident, with the assistance of an independent interpreter, in order to establish whether there are any concerns she would like to raise directly with it, and to report back to the Ombudsman within four weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord to offer mediation to the resident and other residents affected, with a view to exploring a resolution that would be mutually beneficial. The resident to be offered the support she needs in order to access mediation services, including any reasonable adjustments required to meet her needs. The landlord to confirm to the Ombudsman that it has done this, within eight weeks of receiving this determination.
The representative has stated in her correspondence to the landlord and to this service that the resident’s mental health has been affected by the problems she has been experiencing at the housing scheme. The landlord to carry out a welfare check on the resident and to establish if she requires any mental health support, and make appropriate referrals if this is the case. The landlord to confirm to the Ombudsman that it has done this within eight weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide complaint training to staff on the importance of data protection when handling complaints, to ensure that, before accepting a complaint from a representative, the landlord ensures it has received written consent from the resident that the representative can act on their behalf.
The landlord to ensure it properly responds to complaints, addressing each issue and, if it says in its response that it will investigate a concern, that it follows this up and provides the complainant with the outcome of its investigations.