Reliance Social Housing C.I.C (202234067)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234067

Reliance Social Housing C.I.C

26 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s decision to issue a Notice to Quit.
2. The handling of the associated complaint, which included his assertion that the landlord had discriminated against him.

Background and summary of events

Background including policies and procedures

The resident is housed under the Supported Exempt Accommodation (SEA) team which is funded by the Supported Housing Improvement Programme. Under the programme the Department of Levelling Up, Homes and Communities (DHULC) funds councils who bid for the funding. The council in this case works with partner agencies, including the landlord but is not providing a statutory service. The resident’s has an Excluded Licence Agreement (the agreement) with the landlord for “Shared Accommodation”. The agreement states that that the tenancy start date is 10 October 2022 for 12 months although it was signed on 26 January 2023. He has a room within a 4–bedroom house. The agreement confirms the resident must comply with the Accommodation Rules.
The property is managed on behalf of the landlord by a housing organisation that provides services to vulnerable people (the agent). The agreement states that the landlord and its agent can end the licence at any time without reason by providing a written notice. The agreement states that the licence is likely to be ended for several reasons including causing “serious and/or persistent nuisance to other people who live in the accommodation, staff or visitors.” As part of the licence conditions, the resident is required to attend a support session with his allocated support worker at least once a week.
The agreement outlines the complaints procedure applicable to the resident’s housing situation. It states he should first make a complaint to the agent using its complaints procedure. If he is not satisfied with this outcome, he should escalate the complaint in writing to the landlord. If he is dissatisfied with landlord’s response, he can then escalate the complaint to the Service.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states with regards to providing support:
1. “As part of our commitment to tackle anti-social behaviour we recognise that those causing it may have underlying problems which contribute to their actions i.e. alcohol misuse, drug misuse, physical health problems, mental health problems etc.”
2. “Reliance will support those causing anti-social behaviour to identify and resolve their problems either by signposting them to appropriate agencies or making referrals on their behalf. Subject to local arrangements, we may offer in-house support to those willing to change their behaviour.”
3. “Where necessary we will couple any support with enforcement action in order to ensure the person engages and stops causing anti-social behaviour. We will take swift action if the person causing the anti-social behaviour is failing to engage with support and/or their behaviour does not improve. Our primary focus will be to ensure the necessary protection is in place for victims and witnesses.”
4. “In supporting those that are suffering from anti-social behaviour or causing it, staff will report any safeguarding concerns they become aware of to the relevant agencies in accordance with Reliance Safeguarding Children and Adults Policy and Procedures.”
The Procedure Statement within the ASB policy states:
1. “Wherever possible, we will contact the complaint subject to discuss complaints while maintaining the confidentiality of the complainant. It is important that those who are the subject of complaints are given the opportunity to explain their actions and improve/rectify their behaviour.”
The landlord’s Eviction Policy in effect at the time of the complaint states that “Eviction will usually be a last resort, taken when any other action would be
inappropriate or when all efforts to tackle breaches of the tenancy/licence agreement have been exhausted”. With regards to “non-social housing”, the policy notes that “exclusive possession of the room or property is not held”. Guidelines state:
1. “Any notices should be enforced after 7 days…”
2. “All notices should be given in writing after documented warnings…”
3. “Evictions will be sought if the tenant repeatedly breaches the rules as laid out in their Excluded Licence Agreement, which covers such areas as, but is not limited to, …, antisocial behaviour, harassment and bullying, .., refusal of support,…”]#
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs” with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.

Summary of events

On 2 January 2022 the landlord’s agent served a first written warning to the resident. It cited clauses in the agreement relating to nuisance and “Harassment: bullying pestering and upsetting other people”. The warning stated that the resident had caused a nuisance to other residents with verbal abuse and false allegations, resulting in numerous residents making complaints about him. It had spoken to the resident face to face on more than two occasions, therefore it had decided to put its warning in writing.
On 14 February 2023, the agent sent a final warning to the resident in respect of multiple breaches of his licence. It again cited the clauses in the agreement relating to nuisance and harassment. It stated that the resident had “made up lies about other service users in an attempt to have them evicted which have proven to be incorrect”, and that the resident himself had admitted that he had lied. The agent advised a further breach would result in an eviction.
On 24 March 2023, the agent served the resident a Notice of Termination due to “multiple breaches of licence”. The resident was asked to leave by 10am on Wednesday 29 March 2023.
After the council enquired about the notice, on 27 March 2023 the agent provided it with a list of incidents. This indicated the resident had intimidated other residents and had been “proven to be lying” about them. Residents had left the house because of his behaviour, with others currently wanting to leave. The agent noted the resident had admitted to “lying” about other residents stealing his food after it checked CCTV footage in the house.
On 28 March 2023, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord arguing that the property was not a hostel, therefore the resident did not have an excluded license but an assured shorthold tenancy. Therefore, the landlord should apply for a court order to evict. It threatened to apply for an interim injunction to stop the eviction which it considered unlawful. The landlord responded that day contending that the resident had an excluded license agreement which made it clear that it was shared accommodation, and the resident did not have exclusive possession on any part of the accommodation. It would extend the eviction to 7 April 2023 as the resident may have sought legal advice instead of securing alternative accommodation.
On 30 March 2023, the resident’s solicitor wrote again to landlord reiterating its view that the resident had an assured shorthold tenancy, with an agreement for 12 months, and that he had exclusive possession of his room. It argued 14 days was not reasonable notice in any event. It asked the landlord to not proceed with the eviction on 7 April 2023 pending a court order, otherwise it would proceed with injunction proceedings.
On 28 March and 5 April 2023, the resident emailed a complaint directly to the landlord stating he thought he had been the victim of direct discrimination and of a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. He stated that staff had threatened him with eviction and spoken to him in a hostile manner every time he complained about the theft of his food, late night disturbances and damage to personal items. The resident stated that staff had blocked his calls. As part of his claim of direct discrimination he noted that another resident did not have to pay a service charge.
The resident requested the landlord to make a “reasonable adjustment” by not moving people into the house who would disrupt his “peace and safety”. He asked to be compensated for “victimisation and mistreatment”, which had magnified his anxiety and depression. The resident had also contacted the Service which on 5 April 2023 asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint.
On 18 April 2023, the resident’s MP sent a stage 1 complaint on the resident’s behalf raising his concerns about “harassment from staff, lack of support, the validity of the tenancy agreement and an illegal eviction”.
On 20 April 2023, the landlord obtained 3 written statements from other residents with allegations against the resident. An internal email dated 18 May 2023 noted the resident’s “latest accusation” against a member of staff and a resident and how this affected them.
On 5 June 2023, the landlord responded to the resident noting he had raised a complaint while communication between the respective parties’ solicitor was ongoing. It stated that the matters raised within the complaint were linked to the decision to evict him, specifically the decision to serve notice, the reasonableness of that decision, the process and the resident’s assertion that his behaviour was not reasonable, unlike staff and other residents. The landlord advised that its solicitor was seeking advice from Counsel and would revert to the resident’s solicitor. The landlord stated it would not deal with the complaint separately from the overall legal position relating to the termination of the licence agreement.
After receiving legal advice, on 14 June 2023 the landlord served the resident with a Notice to Quit stating he should vacate his room on 21 June 2023. It cited the following breaches of the licence:
1. “Bullying other service users
2. Harassing other service users
3. Causing a nuisance around the property
4. Constant accusations that other service users had stolen or damaged his belongings
5. Abusive language to a support worker
6. Other tenants had complained that his behaviour was having a negative impact on their mental health
7. Non-Engagement in Support Sessions”
Between 15 and 20 June 2023, the resident sent several emails to the landlord, the agent, the local authority, his MP, a councillor, his advocate and other agencies. He reiterated his view that he had been discriminated against and harassed by the agent, he was the victim of theft, late night disturbance and abuse by other residents, and that the eviction was illegal.
The resident did not leave the house on 21 June 2023. On the same day, the landlord made a safeguarding referral to the council.
On 3 July 2023, the landlord met with the resident. It agreed to withdraw the eviction notice and stated it would track the support provided by the agent and the resident’s participation. The landlord said that the resident’s relationship with the agent had been “re-set” but it reminded the resident that he must adhere to house rules and co-operate with support sessions. Afterwards the resident thanked the landlord for its “sensitivity”, “attentiveness” and “reassurance”.
On 20 July 2023, the council’s Revenues and Benefits department cancelled the resident’s benefit claim as the resident had stated he did not receive support.
On 31 July 2023, there was a joint meeting attended by the resident, his advocate, the agent, the landlord and a Community Liaison Officer from a community care provider. The landlord explained that it had initiated an eviction due to harassment of other residents, abusive and aggressive behaviour towards other member of staff and non-engagement with support services which had led to the cancellation of housing benefit. The landlord noted that the resident was apologetic and empathetic towards support workers, and would engage in support. The landlord said if his engagement continued, it would not evict him.
On 21 November 2023, the landlord advised the Service that it had reached a resolution with the resident and was not pursuing a possession claim in court.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to issue a Notice to Quit

Ultimately the landlord retains overall responsibility for its obligations under the licence regardless of who it delegates those responsibilities to. The landlord is also obliged to ensure that anyone it delegates its responsibilities to carries those responsibilities out to an acceptable standard and to ensure that it acts promptly were it to identify any areas where that was not the case.
The landlord’s agent initially sent a warning to the resident on 2 January 2023 then a final warning on 14 February 2023 due his behaviour which affected other residents and staff. The landlord with its agent went on to serve a Notice of Termination on 24 March 2023. The agent’s email of 27 March 2023 noted issues it had taken into consideration.
The landlord has a responsibility to investigate reports of ASB and it has the right to enforce the terms of the agreement. It served written warnings as required by the Evictions Policy in effect at the time. However, there are no contemporaneous records of the incidents referred to in the warnings and listed in the email of 27 March 2023, or even the dates. There are also no records of the verbal contact between the agent and the resident about reports received about him. This is a record keeping failure as landlords should document all the attempts it has made to resolve the ASB. The recorded information should be used to inform further action and to respond to queries about the case.
The landlord did not enforce the notice of 24 March 2023 as it sought legal advice after representation by the resident’s solicitor. It then served another notice on 14 June 2023. However it is not evident that it had taken appropriate steps to satisfy itself that evicting the resident would be reasonable and proportionate. It was aware that the resident was vulnerable, and he had referred to the impact on his mental health; however, there is no evidence that it had carried out a risk assessment for him or considered whether there were safeguarding issues. Furthermore, the notice cited the resident not engaging in support sessions; however, there is no evidence that the landlord considered why the resident was not engaging and explored ways to facilitate engagement. Also, 12 weeks had passed between the notices; however, the landlord did not consider whether there had been any further incidents or changes in the resident’s behaviour during that period.
The landlord did not enforce the notice of 14 June 2023 but met the resident twice in July 2023. This was appropriate because as noted in the Evictions Policy evictions should be a last resort and it should exhaust all steps to ensure compliance with the agreement. Generally, in line with their social remit, social landlords should try to help residents maintain their tenancies/licences. Other agencies also attended which was appropriate as the resident’s accommodation is part of a partnership programme with a focus on supporting vulnerable residents.
It transpired that after the meetings in July the landlord did not proceed with evicting the resident. It would also appear that relationships between the parties have improved, with the resident engaging with support services. However, there is no good reason why the landlord did not hold meetings with the resident and engage partner agencies at an earlier point. Indeed, the ASB policy makes clear that the landlord should both seek to support alleged perpetrator and seek to obtain the their version of events. By choosing to serve notices on the resident instead, the landlord with its agent acted in a heavy-handed manner which caused the resident avoidable distress, inconvenience and uncertainty. The resident had to obtain legal advice on short notice to prevent homelessness had he not obtained legal representation.
Moreover in proceeding with serving notices on the resident without recorded attempts at engagement and consideration of the resident’s needs, the landlord did not follow the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard. This emphasises the need to follow fair process and understand the different needs of residents, including the support needs of vulnerable residents. The resident has ultimately remained in the house. However, given the significance of the landlord’s failures taken together with the acute detriment to the resident prior to the meetings of July 2023, the Service has made a finding of severe maladministration.

The handling of the associated complaint

The resident submitted a complaint directly to the landlord on 28 March and 5 April 2023, and subsequent correspondence from the Service and the MP reiterated his complaint. The landlord declined to accept the complaint in its response of 5 June 2023. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in effect at the time stated “If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process. The explanation must explain that the resident has the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman.”
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not accept the resident’s complaint on the basis the matters raised were linked to the decision to evict him. This is because it considered him to be a licensee. Therefore, there were limited grounds upon which he could defend himself against the eviction.
The resident had complained about staff conduct, the level of support provided by the landlord and its handling of his reports about other residents. As the landlord did not accept his complaint, the issues he had complained about were not investigated. This meant that his concerns about the landlord were not addressed which exacerbated his sense of unfairness. The landlord also did not follow the Code as it did not refer the resident to the Service in its response of 5 June 2023. While the landlord subsequently met with him in July 2023, as noted, this is not a substitute for the complaints process. Ultimately, the landlord did not investigate the particular issues complained about and reach a decision on its handling of those matters.
When concerns are raised about the conduct of a landlord’s staff, its managing agent or support provider, it would be expected to conduct a fair and objective investigation. This should have included interviewing the resident to get an understanding of his concerns.
The resident in making his complaint asserted that he had been the victim of “direct discrimination.” The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. Section 15 prohibits direct discrimination.
The Ombudsman cannot determine whether a landlord has discriminated against a resident. That is a decision for the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord failed to take account of any duties under the Equality Act. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the Equality Act applied to the resident’s situation and specifically whether he had been subject to direct discrimination. By not responding to the resident’s complaint, it missed an opportunity to clarify its position on this matter.
Similarly, the resident requested that the landlord make a “reasonable adjustment” by limiting who could live in the house. The Equality Act provides for reasonable adjustments. The reasonable adjustment duty is ‘anticipatory’, meaning landlords must consider in advance what disabled residents may reasonably need to access their services. The landlord failed to consider whether the action requested was a reasonable adjustment, or whether it should make a reasonable adjustment for the resident in the first instance. Therefore, it also again failed to confirm its position on this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
The Service notes that the complaint procedure as outlined in the resident’s agreement states that complaints should be escalated in writing to the landlord. This is not in line with the Code which states that “landlords must make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels through which residents can make a complaint such as in person, over the telephone, in writing, by email and digitally.” The restriction that residents should escalate the complaint in writing is particular unreasonable for the resident’s accommodation given that vulnerable residents are housed there.
The Service also notes that the landlord has a corporate 2 stage complaints procedure. In this case a third party, the agent, is responsible for sending a complaint response within the 2 stage complaint procedure. The corporate complaint procedure does not recognise that there are instances where a third party should respond to a complaint. For clarity it is recommended that the corporate complaint procedure states that this situation may occur, and that the third party should handle the complaint in line with the current version of the Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to issue a Notice to Quit.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint, which included the resident’s assertion that it had discriminated against him.

Reasons

It is not evident that the landlord prior to serving notice on the resident took appropriate steps to satisfy itself that evicting him would be reasonable and proportionate. While the landlord later met with the resident and withdrew the notices, there is no good reason why it did not take these actions earlier.
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not accept the resident’s complaint on the basis the matters raised were linked to the decision to evict him. The landlord also did not follow the Code as it did not refer the resident to this Service in its response of 5 June 2023.

Orders and recommendations

The Service orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks to:
1. arrange for the Chief Executive to send a written apology to the resident for the failings in services identified in this report. The landlord should consider the Service’s guidance on providing apologies which is contained within our Remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident £400 compensation comprising:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its decision to serve a Notice to Quit.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its complaint handling.
  3. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.
The Service has previously found severe maladministration following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord about the support provided to residents. As a result of these investigations, wider orders were issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme under previous complaints (202204234 and 202211732). The landlord was ordered under the previous cases to produce a single report containing:
1. A review of its investigation into the concerns raised about the support provided to the resident and its responses to those concerns.
2. A review of its monitoring and oversight arrangements of third parties (its agents) acting on its behalf in delivering services to its residents.
3. A review of its and its agents’ working practices and staff training arrangements in relation to the failings set out in this report to ensure it meets its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010.
4. A review of its record keeping processes and those if its agents, in light of the findings in this report and this Service’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.
5. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar failings by the landlord, at this and other properties, to the present day. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure and consideration as to whether it has made similar failings in relation to those residents that need to be redressed.
The Service orders the landlord within the next 12 weeks to carry out a further review taking into account the particular circumstances of this case. This review should consider the issues reviewed under cases 202204234 and 202211732, listed above. The landlord should consider to what extent the outcome of the review of cases 202204234 and 202211732 can be applied to this case. The review of this case should be conducted by a senior leadership team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation.
In addition the landlord should confirm within the next 12 weeks the steps it is taking to ensure that the agent:
1. keeps detailed and contemporaneous records of ASB and possible breaches of the residential agreement by residents.
2. is aware of the procedure that should be followed when tackling ASB and breaches of the agreement and when deciding to evict a resident. This should include ensuring the agent considers the vulnerabilities of all parties concerned.
The Service recommends that the landlord:
1. takes steps to ensure that complaint handling staff provide residents with information on their right to access the Ombudsman Service and how they can engage with the Ombudsman about their complaint.
2. changes the agreement at the resident’s house so that it does not state that complaints should be escalated in writing.
3. amend the corporate complaints procedure to reflect that fact that third parties may respond to complaints and that they should do so in line with the current version of the Code.