Hackney Council (202005813)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005813

Hackney Council

30 November 2021

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 reports of repairs in the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building, including external doors (Landlord and Tenant Act 1985). The landlord is required to complete repairs within a reasonable period of time.
The resident is required to provide access to the property if the landlord wants to inspect the condition of the property following 24 hours’ written notice of an inspection, if the time is not convenient then the resident may suggest a better time.
The landlord’s guidance on managing unreasonable and unreasonably persistent customer behaviour sets out its approach for handling such circumstances. The policy states:
1. Behaviour of customers may have an impact on staff health and wellbeing and in those instances the landlord has a duty of care over its employers.
2. Unreasonable customers are those who have a “significantly detrimental impact on staff health and wellbeing”.
3. In situations where customers become “abusive, threatening or otherwise behave unacceptably”, the landlord may “restrict access to our processes, premises or staff to protect us from harassment or harm”.
The guidance document does not further state specifically what actions the landlord can take to address reports of unreasonable behaviour, it has discretion over this. It would be expected to act reasonably and proportionally.
The resident has a mental health condition. The resident has expressed that he has been willing to use the relevant support systems and has given the landlord permission to contact them on his behalf.
The Ombudsman has not assessed the allegations of the resident’s reported unacceptable behaviour; it has investigated whether the landlord’s actions following such reports have been reasonable.

Summary of events

In December 2019 the landlord carried out some work to the resident’s front door. Follow up work was required for plastering and making good around the door frame. The job was raised on 15 January 2020 and was cancelled on 24 January 2020 “due to an ongoing investigation”. This was related to a verbal exchange between the resident and the landlord’s staff following the contractor’s handling of the resident’s possessions while on site. Full details have not been seen.
On 31 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord. He explained that an appointment was booked to attend the property and make good the plastering around the front door, but no one attended. When the resident chased this, he was told that it was cancelled and the resident explained that he waited the entire day with no notification about this.
On 11 February 2020 the landlord contacted the resident by letter and said that “all planned repairs for your property (normal priority) have been cancelled”. This was for a job for plastering and making good around the door frame. The landlord said that it was due to an ongoing investigation carried out regarding an incident (between the contractors who were on site and the resident).
Five months later, on 27 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident about its restrictions. It provided details of its approach to carry out outstanding repairs:
1. The repairs were to the door frame and a survey to seek what repairs were needed in the property.
2. It said that it wanted to propose a date to carry out the repairs and said that the appointment would need to comply to the conditions for carrying out work.
3. The letter set out the process/conditions, such as requiring the resident to vacate the property and leave his keys in a key safe outside, the number of staff who would attend, and what it would do if this was not adhered to (if the resident had not vacated the property or keys not in the key safe when the contractor attended, then it would cancel the work and rebook this for a suitable date and time). It explained that once the work was complete it would leave the key in the key safe and contact the resident.
4. It provided the details of the key safe.
An MP enquiry on behalf of the resident was logged and responded to by the landlord in September 2020. The MP enquiry listed a number of repairs in the property. In response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s circumstances (such as his mental health condition) and said that it encouraged the resident to engage with support services. It detailed certain incidents and said that it acted to safeguard staff. It explained that it would review the restriction in July 2021. At present it is not clear that this has been lifted (this investigation is based on the timeframe of the complaint process and considers the resident’s reports of the landlord’s actions in 2020).
The landlord briefly detailed the reports of incidents of unreasonable behaviour from the resident such as making threats against staff members, face to face and over the telephone. It said that the resident approached staff on site and made threats towards them, causing the police to be called. On one occasion it explained that it closed down an office, due to the risk to staff. It explained that the ASB service issued a warning for breach of tenancy conditions with a view to instigating legal actions if more incidents occurred.
It should be noted that the resident has explained to the landlord that he disputes the landlord’s “campaign” against him and that he has struggled to understand the landlord’s restrictions. He has said that he felt unwell and has a mental health condition and that he has felt that the landlord’s actions have discriminated against him. He has also said that he just wants the repairs to be completed and that he cannot live like this.
In September 2020, the landlord noted reports of a leak in the property. This has not been subject to the landlord’s internal complaint process, however, the landlord’s correspondence about the leak is relevant in informing the Ombudsman of the approaches it considered in respect of gaining access to the property in a safe way.
Internal correspondence from September 2020 noted that the resident had “aggressive and heated calls” with staff and he advised that he would not vacate the property for the landlord to carry out repairs. As a result, the landlord could not carry out repairs (regarding a leak) because it could not deem it safe to go in. According to the record, the landlord considered gaining access with a number of staff to provide the appropriate presence, as it had done on another occasions, to approach the repairs. However, it did not do this.
The landlord considered that it could co-ordinate a visit with the local authority’s safer neighbourhood team in the event of the resident refusing access (in respect of a different repair). However, it appears that it did not follow through with this and concluded that it was not safe to attend.
On 21 September 2020 a contractor noted that it attended and waited outside the property for about an hour and the housing officer and enforcement officer were not present. It was told by the landlord that the resident needed to be outside of the property before it could carry out works. As a result, the scheduled work was not completed.
It is evident that there have been ongoing internal discussions about other options to complete works and safeguard staff but that no works have taken place.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in September 2020 and confirmed in October 2020 that he wanted to complain about the landlord’s response to his request that it repairs his front door. He explained that the landlord advised him that it would carry out the repair if/while he was not at the property and asked him to leave his keys so that it could access the property while he is not in. The resident complained that the landlord’s reason for this was an allegation about conduct towards a contractor who attended on a previous occasion and that was not sufficient reason for the landlord to decide that it would only repair (his front door) while he was not in. The resident said that he was not prepared for contractors to attend while he was not there.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its final response to his complaint. It outlined the complaint (about the landlord’s advice that it will not carry out repairs while he is at the property because of the allegations from a previous visit by a contractor). It held that:
1. The resident made “repeated threats against numerous members of staff, both face to face and over the telephone”.
2. To safeguard its staff and manage the resident’s behaviour, the landlord imposed conditions through its unreasonable behaviour procedure and it sent the terms to the resident on 27 July 2020 (see paragraph 12 above).
3. The resident said that he has poor mental health and so the landlord referred him to one of its teams to try and support him. The team contacted the resident on 30 October 2020 to discuss his support needs and he said that he was on medication but was not being supported. It discussed arrangements to make a mental health referral. It is not clear that it did make a referral.
4. The resident said he was not willing to allow access (on the basis of the July 2020 letter).
5. It made a commitment to the resident to carry out all outstanding repairs including making good work required to the front door, however, the resident’s “refusal to adhere to the conditions paced on him on 27 July 2020 has made it difficult, if not impossible, for repairs to be progressed”.
6. It encouraged the resident to adhere to the terms to allow the landlord to complete repairs.
On 20 November 2020 the landlord noted the details of a call from the resident. It noted that the resident said that he felt that the conditions imposed on him were based on lies and the staff had started a campaign of character assassination against him. He told the landlord that “under no circumstances” would he leave the home to facilitate repairs and these must be done while he is in the property. He further explained that he felt suicidal and ill, and he wanted the repairs undertaken.

Assessment and findings

It is not disputed that there are repairs outstanding in the resident’s property, specifically the door frame and possibly other repairs. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for the repairs. The reasonableness of the landlord’s approach in completing the repairs has been disputed by the resident.
The resident has explained that he feels that the landlord is discriminating against him and has highlighted his mental health condition. He does not feel that the landlord is justified in imposing the restrictions on him that require him to leave the property while contractors attend repairs. He would like the repairs to be completed.
The landlord did not provide evidence of its communication to the resident on the day that the initial repair to the door was cancelled (January 2020) and the resident was only told that this was cancelled when he chased it. This was unreasonable.
Following the cancellations of the repairs in January and February, the resident was first told of the conditions required to carry out the repair five months later in July 2020. This delay was not reasonable.
Thereafter, the landlord relied on the terms of its letter of July 2020 to explain its approach in response to the resident’s escalation of his complaint (in October/November 2020) about the lack of repairs. The landlord explained that it required the arrangement (that the resident vacates the property) for the safety of its staff before it could complete repairs.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the original allegations against the resident. Although the resident has disputed the landlord’s restrictions, the landlord is entitled to take steps if it has assessed that there is a risk to its staff from residents. As such, the landlord did not act unreasonably by requesting the condition for the repair before it attended the property. It is a serious step and not one which its guidance on unreasonable behaviour specifically stipulates for, however, the landlord has discretion to respond to reports of risks as it considers appropriate in its duty to safeguard employees.
It would be resolution focused for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how to proceed from this point if the restrictions remain in place (eg provide him with details of its review or appeal process). It would be resolution focused for the landlord to also monitor the circumstances to ensure that its restrictions, if ongoing, are proportional. It is important that the landlord is clear in its communication, given the resident’s previous comments about his difficulty in understanding and about his mental health condition.
Given the resident’s mental health condition it would be reasonable for the landlord to explore all possible options, as the alternative seems to be that the resident would go without a repair service from the landlord and this could have more serious implications (especially in respect of urgent repairs).
The resident’s concern about discrimination due to his mental health is acknowledged. This would be more appropriate for a court to investigate. The resident may seek independent legal advice.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about its decision not to undertake repairs to his door in the property.

Reasons

The landlord did not communicate its cancellation of the repair in January 2020 to the resident. The landlord only contacted the resident in February 2020 to tell him that outstanding repairs were cancelled, and then it contacted him in July 2020 to set out the approach it was taking to carry out repairs in the property. The delay in communicating with the resident was not reasonable. The landlord has failed to acknowledge this in its complaint response to the resident.
The landlord is entitled to respond to reports about resident conduct when it receives this. The allegations are not investigated by the Ombudsman. However, the landlord is also required to ensure that it communicates the process clearly with the resident, including any appeals and relevant review period. The landlord may consider the practicality of enforcing such conditions as it did in this case, where there are mental health and vulnerability concerns.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 compensation for the failure to communicate the cancellation of his repair appointment in January 2020 and the delay in communicating with him about how he could access its repair service.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to:
1. Confirm with the resident its actions in referring the resident to the relevant mental health support services so that the resident can access the relevant support.
2. Provide the resident with details of its review and appeals process for its repair restrictions (that the resident must vacate the property for the landlord to complete repairs) if this remains in place.
3. Consider if there are any alternative options for completing repairs, if the resident continues to stay in the property, such as by visiting with a group or engaging in the help of support services.