Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Connexus Homes Limited (202228594)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228594

Connexus Homes Limited

18 November 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a change to its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour Policy.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has confirmed that it is aware that the resident has ADHD and Borderline Personality Disorder. The resident has confirmed this in his correspondence with this Service.
  2. On 5 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord referring to a letter he had received the previous year regarding its decision to apply its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour Policy in his case. The resident said that the landlord reviewed this on an annual basis and asked that it confirm whether it was going to do the same that year.
  3. The landlord responded the following day to say that the Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviours Policy had been reviewed in June 2022 and now stated that the landlord would conduct a review once every 2 years. As such, the next review of the resident’s status would be completed in March 2024.
  4. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 6 February 2023 saying that he was ‘saddened and dismayed’ that it had introduced a material change to a policy and ‘never thought’ to tell him. The resident said that, as a disabled person, he had the right to be notified of changes that affect or are likely to affect him. The resident said that he did not think 2 years was fair or acceptable and that he wished to complain about the landlord’s decision. The resident said considering the way this had been handled, and the failure to keep him informed, he was requesting a review that year stating that this would be fair and reasonable given the circumstances. The resident also asked for a copy of the new policy.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 February 2023. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It was sorry that the resident was unhappy with how it had reviewed the policy. However, this was done following due process as set out by ‘the Organisation.’ The period for review had been set at 2 years and that it could not comply with the resident’s request that his status be reviewed that year, advising that his next review would be completed in March 2024.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 February 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 27 February 2023.
  7. On 10 March 2023, the landlord met with the resident and his sister to discuss his concerns. At the meeting, it was suggested that the landlord carry out its investigation and then come back to him with an outcome.
  8. On 3 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident, to confirm that it would provide its final written response to his complaint by 14 April 2023.
  9. The landlord issued its final response on 14 April 2023, referring to a further meeting with the resident and his sister on 13 April 2023 to discuss the outcome of its investigation. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint and went on to:
    1. Acknowledge that it did not give due regard to how the change in its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviours Policy made the resident feel when he was informed that his review date had been changed from 1 to 2 years.
    2. Explain that the policy was discussed at 2 senior managers meetings in May and June 2022 and was approved at the latter date. Customers views were also sought through its involvement network and 5 customers fed into the review. Whilst it agreed that the resident did not know the timeframe had changed, the change in policy was reviewed and approved by Senior Managers and so his status review date remained March 2024.
    3. Acknowledge that the resident had raised a valid point about the availability of policies that affect its customers, and in particular its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviours Policy, and its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policies, which it confirmed were not currently available on its website. The landlord confirmed that this would be discussed at a future Senior Manager’s meeting but in the meantime, it had requested these 2 policies be uploaded to its website by the end of May 2023.
    4. Acknowledge that an updated Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) had not been carried out when the policy was reviewed. The landlord went on to say that it was not its policy, at the time of the review, to carry out a new EqIA for a policy revision. However, it recognised that this was not best practice and so it would therefore now require an EqIA for all policies whether new or revised. The landlord said that an EqIA would be completed for the reviewed version of its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviours policy and that it would provide the resident with a copy once this had been completed. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the EqIA should involve people with protected characteristics and said that its new guidance states that this is good practice.
  10. On 31 May 2023, the landlord completed an EqIA of its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour Policy, a copy of which it forwarded to the resident on 1 June 2023. The EqIA confirms that this had been reviewed as a result of the resident’s complaint and to ensure the policy was taking customers individual needs and disabilities into consideration.
  11. On 11 April 2024, the resident contacted this Service to say that he was no longer classed as ‘unreasonable’ by the landlord and had had all restrictions placed upon him removed.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what, if anything, the landlord has done to put things right. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
  3. It is not within our remit to determine whether a landlord has acted unlawfully as that is for the courts to decide. However, we will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with its policies and the expectations of this Service, and whether these were fair and reasonable given all the circumstances of the case.

Assessment

  1. The landlord advised that following a recommendation by this Service to have a review timeframe set out in its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour Policy, it started a review of the policy in May 2022. The landlord said that this was concluded in June 2022 when the revised policy was approved after colleague and customer consultation.
  2. The landlord has not disputed that up until the change in policy in June 2022, it had conducted reviews on a yearly basis. Having not been advised to the contrary, it was therefore reasonable for the resident to have expected his review to have been carried out in line with this. It is also understandable that it would have been distressing for him to have been advised in February 2023 that the timeframe for reviews had been changed some 8 months earlier and that, as a result of that change, his review date had been extended for a further year.
  3. Whilst the landlord was not obliged to inform all residents directly of the change in its policy it would have been good practice for it to have made this information available, such as on its website. This would not only ensure that its residents, and most especially those affected, were aware of the change but would also provide the landlord with an opportunity to build and maintain good relationships with them. However, the landlord did not do so.
  4. It would also have been good practice for the landlord to have considered whether any of the residents, who would be directly impacted by this change, had a vulnerability that would put them at a particular disadvantage in relation to this change, compared to other residents without such a vulnerability. Again, it did not do so.
  5. The landlord’s initial response to the complaint was heavy handed and showed no empathy for how the change might have affected the resident or how it made him feel, despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. To have received such a response would have been understandably distressing for him.
  6. In general, the landlord’s response at stage 2 was fair and reasonable.
    1. It met with the resident to discuss his complaint and then arranged a further meeting to talk through its findings with him prior to issuing its response.
    2. It also evidenced that it had sought to put things right and learn from the complaint by:
      1. Acknowledging that the resident had raised a valid point about the availability of policies that affected residents and saying that this would be discussed at future Senior Manager meeting. In the meantime, it also confirmed that its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour policy and its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy would be on its website by the end of May 2023.
      2. Recognising that not having completed a new EqIA when it reviewed its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour was not best practice and confirmed that going forward it now require an EqIA for all policies whether new or revised. It also arranged for an EqIA review to be carried out, which it completed in May 2023, and agreed to send a copy to the resident, which it did in June 2023.
  7. However, in its final response, whilst the landlord acknowledged the way the change in policy had ‘made him feel,’ it failed to reflect on the inappropriate tone and content of its stage 1 response, which it should have apologised for but did not do.
  8. Further, whilst it is acknowledged that it consulted with residents in its ‘involvement network’ regarding the change in policy, there is no evidence that the landlord notified those directly affected about the change to the policy. In general, this was an oversight on the landlord’s part. However, in the case of the resident, who the landlord was aware was vulnerable and therefore might have been more significantly affected by this change and the lack of notification, this represents a failure.
  9. The landlord’s Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Policy, which was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint states that it will ‘Carry out equality impact assessments on all policies and significant change programmes to ensure they deliver (its) ED&I objectives’. The landlord’s EDI policy is silent on whether it was its policy, at the time the Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour Policy was reviewed, to carry out a new EqIA for a policy revision.
  10. The Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) guidance provided by the landlord sets out situations when an EqIA should be completed. This includes when an existing policy or activity is being reviewed or changed. However, this is not dated and so it is not possible for this Service to say with any certainty whether this was in place at the time the landlord reviewed its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour Policy.
  11. Nevertheless, whilst it may not have been the landlord’s policy at the time it reviewed its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour Policy, its previous EqIA of that policy in July 2019 clearly stated a review date of July 2022. Given that this was only 2 months after the landlord started the review of its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour Policy, it would have been reasonable to have expected the landlord to have considered carrying out the review of the EqIA at the same time as it reviewed the policy. However, it did not do so.
  12. Further, as the previous EqIA was due for review in July 2022, that the landlord had not carried out that review by the time of the resident’s complaint in February 2023, represents a further failure on its part.
  13. Overall, whilst it is evident that the landlord took a number of steps to put things right and to learn from the resident’s complaint, given that it failed to recognise its failures with regards to the EqIA and to reflect on the inappropriate tone and content of its stage 1 response, for which it should have apologised, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  14. To put this right, and in fairness to the resident, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to him for these failures and to pay him £200 compensation. This is in line with the amounts set out in this Service’s remedies guidance in circumstances where the landlord may have made an offer of action but this does not reflect the detriment to the resident and is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect its handling of a change to its Unacceptable User Actions and Behaviour Policy.

Orders

  1. That within 28 calendar days of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay him £200 compensation for the failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord is to confirm its compliance with the above in line with the given timescales.