Reliance Social Housing C.I.C (202204234)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204234

Reliance Social Housing C.I.C

20 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s responses to concerns raised about:
1. The resident being asked to sign his occupancy agreement under pressure and being threatened with eviction.
2. The suitability of the resident’s occupancy agreement.
3. Its handling of repair reports and concerns about the facilities provided at the property.
4. The support offered to the resident.
This complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and scope of investigation.

The resident had an excluded licence agreement to occupy the property which commenced on 16 June 2022. At the time of the landlord’s final response, in October 2022, the resident no longer lived at the property.
The property was a room in a 4 bedroom house that was managed on behalf of the landlord by a managing agent, with a third party being engaged to provide support to the resident.
The accommodation was Supported Exempt Accommodation, supported housing where the landlord is a not-for-profit organisation and provides care, support or supervision to the resident.
Some exempt accommodation is commissioned or approved by councils or other public sector organisations. In such cases quality is monitored and managed through contractual arrangements. However, in this case the accommodation is non-commissioned exempt accommodation. This means that whilst the Council in this case had the power to scrutinise Housing Benefit claims for the accommodation, it had limited powers to challenge concerns about the services and support provided by the non-commissioned provider unless there were safeguarding issues.
This service has received 2 versions of the resident’s licence agreement, one signed by the resident with no other details completed and a second where details, including the level of rent and the tenancy start date have been completed. The second agreement includes the signatures for the resident and a representative of the landlord. Within their correspondence with this service, the MP expressed concerns that the resident’s signature and handwriting on the second agreement were not his. Whilst this Service does not doubt the concerns raised about this matter, if the resident believes that his signature and handwriting have been copied without his consent, this would amount to a potential fraud, which is a criminal matter, and as such falls outside of the remit of this Service to investigate.

Summary of events

On 1 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord’s support provider to ask that someone ‘‘please just sit down and go through’’ his agreement with him. The resident went on to say ‘‘I have PTSD, bipolar, ADHD and autism of which it should say in your file. It causes me ridiculous amounts of anxiety and I just want things done properly so it doesn’t cause any more undue stress’’.
The support provider’s response to this was to say that it ‘‘understood’’. It then went on to say:
1. ‘‘It’s the exact same contract you had at (your previous property)’’.
2. ‘‘There’s not much to it at all but you’ve made it a massive thing in your head…but still that’s okay’’.
3. ‘‘Just sign you papers and everything will go back to normal’’.
4. ‘‘Due to declining paper work on numerous occasions, you are not licensed to remain at the property’’.
5. That this was a formal notice for him to leave the property and to look for alternative accommodation.
In response the resident said that he had not declined anything and that he had just asked for a full copy of the agreement. The support provider’s response to this was to say:
1. ‘’Look mate, there’s no missing part to the paperwork. Either you sign the paperwork provided or you move out today. You’re not licensed to be on the property as it stands due to no licence agreement being signed so you’re technically trespassing’’.
Following this exchange, and on the same day, the support provider contacted the resident’s aunt and the resident sent the support provider screenshots of his signed licence agreement. The document sent had been signed by the resident but no other information had been completed. The fully completed licence agreement, containing signatures for both parties, was not dated until 16 June 2022.
On 13 June 2022, the resident emailed his MP to say that it had been a week since the raw sewage ‘’flooding the garden’’ had been reported and nothing had been done about it. The resident said that he had contacted the Council about this.
It is unclear when the Council contacted the landlord about the resident’s concerns. However, on 17 June 2022 a pre-inspection of the property was carried out by the landlord’s Community Liaison Officer (CLO). An inspection of the property was then carried out by the Council’s Exempt Accommodation Team and a representative from Adult Social Care, together with representatives from the landlord on 20 June 2022.
On 21 June 2022, the Council’s Exempt Accommodation Team wrote to the landlord thanking it for facilitating the visit on 20 June 2022. In their email the Exempt Accommodation Team referred to the service being provided by the landlord as a ‘’very poor example of accommodation and support within the sector’’ and asked that the resident be moved. The Exempt Accommodation Team also said that it would need an action plan from the landlord in respect of its managing agent and the third party it used to provide support. This service has not had sight of any evidence relating to the requested action plan being provided to the Council.
On 22 June 2022, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord to raise a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf. The complaint concerned:
1. The gas supply, which was used for cooking, heating and hot water had not been available at the property for periods of about 5-7 days.
2. A drain blockage, which had caused raw sewage to ‘‘flood’’ into the garden and which had been reported 2 weeks previously.
3. The resident being without a fridge or freezer for about 4 weeks. The position of the fridge unit also made the only bathroom and a second fire escape inaccessible.
4. The resident had never been given the code to his bedroom which meant he was unable to secure his belongings and he was scared to leave his room in case any items were stolen whilst he was away.
5. That he had been told that internet would be included in his tenancy but this had not been made available, which made it difficult for him to check benefit journals and access other services.
6. Additional repairs issues including:
  1. Loose and insecure handrail on stairs.
  2. Loose and uneven floorboards
  3. Unstable bricks in wall.
7. The resident being given an Excluded License Agreement (ELA) which did not seem to be the correct agreement for residents in supported accommodation.
8. The resident had only received 1 hours of support since he had been with the landlord, with an average session lasting about 20 to 30 minutes and shared with approximately 4 other people.
9. The resident had been threatened with eviction for asking to read his licence in order to understand his rights. The resident also stated that he was asked to sign a blank licence document without any of the details including his name and address at the top. The resident had said that these were then completed by the support worker at a later date.
10. Despite frequent requests, the resident was not in receipt of a final copy of his agreement nor had he been given missing pages, which he had frequently requested.
On 27 June 2022, the support provider advised the landlord that the resident had refused to sign the paperwork for several weeks. That he would only sign the paperwork if he were allowed to keep the sign up pack with him to go through in detail, which it agreed to. The support provider also referred to contacting the resident’s aunt, and that several members of staff had gone to try and ‘’sort it out’’ but were unsuccessful. The resident had ‘‘finally’’ agreed to meet with the support worker the following day, 28 June 2022. Three support sessions, on 30 May, 5 and 15 June 2022 were also referred to. No evidence of these sessions have been seen by this Service.
The landlord responded to the MP on 29 June 2022 saying that:
1. It carried out an immediate inspection of the property on 17 June 2022 and all services were supplied and operating. Its managing agent supplied evidence of meter top-ups prior to its unannounced visit. Due to the nature of the complaint a further joint visit was conducted with the council on ‘‘21 June 2022’’ and that both it and the Council were satisfied that all services were provided and operating.
2. The blocked drain was resolved by its managing agent within a reasonable period of time and that the area was clear was witnessed by it and the Council at the joint inspection.
3. It and the Council were provided with evidence of text messages sent to residents with room codes and the resident had confirmed that he had received his code.
4. Its Managing Agent was aware of the internet access issue and was awaiting an engineer visit to install this.
5. The handrail on the staircase, which was slightly loose, had been repaired. The points relating to unstable bricks, uneven flooring, loose floorboards, had not been raised or identified during its visit to the property with the Council.
6. The assumption that it had taken steps to resolve issues were because of the Council’s visit was incorrect, as it had already paid an unannounced visit on 17 June 2022 and these matters were either resolved or non-existent.
7. Adequate support was provided to individual residents based on their specific needs and engagement. The support was not necessarily based on time and ‘’more than minimum’’ support was provided.
8. The resident had asked for a copy of the contract before he signed the document. He was given a blank copy to read but it had seen a fully completed form.
9. It would like the MP to explain why they believed its excluded licence agreement was not correct.
On 1 July 2022, the MP wrote to the landlord again in response to its correspondence of 29 June 2022. The MP said that the repairs were reported by the resident, and others, when he moved into the property but nothing had been done until the Council visited on 20 June 2022. The drain blockage had not been fixed, the handrail and floorboards were still a problem and the resident still did not have a code for his room. The MP also repeated their concerns about the level of support provided, the type of occupancy agreement, that the resident was made to sign his agreement under duress and asked that it provide a fully signed copy of that document.
On 4 July 2022, the Council’s Exempt Accommodation Team leader emailed the landlord to ask for an update on outstanding works at the property and to advise that the resident had reported that the sewage problem had starting again. The landlord’s CLO responded the same day and confirmed that the water supplier would be attending to investigate.
On 7 July 2022, the Council’s Exempt Accommodation Team Manager wrote to the landlord to raise concerns about the lack of support and ‘‘unprofessional’’ conduct of its support workers and managing agent. The council said that a number of weeks had elapsed without a conclusion and that the landlord was taking a ‘’prolonged approach’’ to resolving the outstanding concerns.
The Council’s Exempt Accommodation team emailed the landlord again on 12 July 2022, in which it:
1. Said that the property failed its inspection, was ‘‘poorly managed’’ and that nobody present could address the concerns. Further it said that the residents had been ‘‘left to live in poor conditions’’ prior to the council’s involvement.
2. Listed the following ‘‘Urgent’’ repairs including:
  1. That although drain in the back garden had been unblocked the sewage remained and required cleaning.
  2. That the boiler piping needed to be protected by insulation foam or boxed in with non-conductive material.
  3. That secure grippers were needed to the landing carpet to reduce any risk of slips/trips or falls.
3. Asked that the landlord evidence that a request had been made to change to direct debit meters, the Council having been informed that residents had been left with no gas for days at a time. No evidence of this information being provided to the Council by the landlord has been seen by this Service.
4. Said that to avoid reinspection it was to be provided with video/photo evidence by the close of business the following day. It also asked to see the referral/report from the water supplier in respect of the sewage issue. No evidence of this information being provided to the Council by the landlord has been seen by this service.
On 12 July 2022, the landlord emailed the Council to say that all the issues relating to the property had been resolved, that the property was HHSRS and Decent Home compliant, and that it had booked a follow up visit to the property on 13 July 2022.
On 16 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident, saying that it had been contacted by the Council as he had made a complaint to them about the standard of the property. The landlord said that as a result of the resident’s complaint, its Community Liaison Officer (CLO) had carried out an unannounced visit to the property on 17 June 2022 and found the following:
1. There was gas supply at the property .
2. There was a blocked drain, a drain company had previously been called out and had been unable to resolve the issue. Another visit had been booked with the water supplier.
3. There was a fridge freezer in the kitchen and the location was not causing any fire risk hazard.
4. The managing agent was able to show text messages giving him his door keycode.
5. There was no internet but the managing agent had informed it and the resident that this had been booked.
6. The handrail was loose and its managing agent had been advised to repair this within 24 hours.
7. A joint inspection with the Council took place at the property on ‘‘21 June 2022’’ and all the above issues were addressed at this joint inspection.
The landlord went on to say that:
1. On 22 June 2022, his MP had written to it raising the same complaint, with an addition that he was being threatened with eviction and had been handed a blank tenancy agreement. The landlord also noted that the MP had asked whether the excluded licence agreement was the correct form of tenancy. In response to these elements of his complaint, the landlord said that:
  1. The support was in line with the DWP guidelines and was more than minimal.
  2. The blank tenancy agreement was given to the resident by its managing agent, upon his request and that it had been provided with a signed copy.
  3. The Excluded Licence Agreement was appropriate, due to the nature of the supported and shared accommodation.
2. On 1 July 2022, it received a further email from the MP stating that not all matters had been resolved. The landlord said that:
  1. The drain company had attended on more than one occasions and that there appeared to be a problem that might require resolution by the water supplier, as the blockage may be on a neighbouring property.
  2. It had been provided with logs and evidence of the call outs and that a new date for the engineer being booked.
  3. The blocked drain had been resolved and that it had ‘‘nevertheless’’ placed the resident on a priority waiting list for self-contained flat’’ and that its Tenant Support Manager (TSM) would make efforts to re-house the resident. The landlord repeated that it was satisfied that the resident was currently in accommodation that met the Decent Homes Standard.
3. On 15 July 2022, its TSM and CLO visited the resident. The landlord said that it was ‘‘concerning’’ that in their presence the resident complained of the handrail being loose. The landlord went on to say that its TSM and CLO checked and it was fine but the resident then used ‘‘excessive force’’ and removed the handrail in their presence. The landlord said that ‘‘despite this’’ its TSM offered the resident alternative accommodation but the agent was not able to make contact him, as his phone was switched off or not working.
The landlord’s support provider, completed an stage 1 and 2 placement assessment with the resident on 15 August 2022. The assessment confirmed that the resident was a self-referral and that the criteria to access the accommodation had been met, with the resident having at least 5 support needs. The assessment went on to note that the resident had PTSD, BPD, ADHD, depression and anxiety. It also indicated that the residents support choices included assistance with economic wellbeing, health, independence, maintaining accommodation and move on. The initial support plan was also completed on 15 August 2022, with a review date of 15 November 2022.
Following contact from the resident’s MP, this service wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2022, asking that it provide its stage 2 response as the resident remained dissatisfied with its response to his complaint.
On 29 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that his complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and offering a meeting to discuss his concerns.
On 3 October 2022, the resident’s MP contacted this service, in response to the landlord’s offer to meet with the resident. The MP said that it would not be appropriate for the resident to meet with the landlord when it had started eviction proceedings against him. The MP advised that the landlord was pursuing the resident for arrears, following Housing Benefit’s review of the support provided at the property and its decision to recoup all its funding from the start of the resident’s occupation of the property. The same day this service advised the landlord that the resident had declined the landlord’s invitation to meet and asked that it provide its final written response to the complaint.
The landlord forwarded its final response to the resident’s complaint on 24 October 2022, stating that the resident no longer lived at the property.
1. With regards to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his licence agreement and that he was asked to sign this under pressure, the landlord said that:
  1. It had had studied the content of text messages sent to the resident and had spoken to the managing agent. Due to the delay in signing the agreement the managing agent had been asking him to either sign the agreement or vacate the premises as they had no right to house him and claim housing benefit without a signed agreement.
  2. It understood that a full copy of the signed agreement was provided to the resident.
  3. The issue of the resident being threatened with eviction and police action, as he had been asking the managing agent to read his contract, was never raised and it was not aware of any threats being made.
  4. It was satisfied no further action was needed.
2. With regards to repair reports and concerns about the facilities provided at the property the landlord:
  1. Repeated the position it had given regarding the gas supply in its response of 29 June 2022.
  2. Said that between 7 and 16 June 2022 a series of visits were made by a number of specialist drain clearing companies to investigate and resolve an underlying issue with the drains. It was established that the root cause of the blockage was a neighbouring property. The specialists carried out works which resolved the problem satisfactorily. The landlord said that it appreciated that this problem took a little time to resolve, however reasonable steps were taken and it apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused.
  3. Said that a fridge freezer was present within the property, however due to an intermittent electric fault the fridge was temporarily unfunctional. This was resolved with the installation of a replacement fridge freezer. It apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused.
  4. Said that concerns about the location of the fridge freezer were not raised during its inspection and there was no fire hazard. All its properties undergo Fire Risk Assessments and it was satisfied that no further action was needed.
  5. Said that when it checked the handrail it was fine but the resident then proceeded, in its presence, to apply excessive force and remove the handrail .The handrail was subsequently repaired following the visit. With regards to the floorboards, none were identified on the day of the visit and it was satisfied that no further action was needed.
  6. Said it had seen text messages confirming that information regarding his room code had been sent to the resident.
  7. Said that a cleaning contractor was commissioned to clean the communal areas and the provision of a vacuum cleaner was not part of the licence agreement.
  8. Said that the provision of internet was not set out in the license agreement and therefore was not a part of his license agreement. However, the managing agent was providing internet as an additional arrangement. It understood that there was a delay caused by the internet provider, which it said was beyond its control, and apologised for any inconvenience.
3. With regards to the quality of the support being provided, the landlord said that the managing agent had provided evidence of support workers attempting to provide support where he was not fully engaged. It had also facilitated a change in support worker to assist in resolving any breakdown of communication. The landlord said that it was satisfied that all attempts were made to deliver meaningful support.

Assessment and findings

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 Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
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 in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
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”.
The landlord’s website directs residents to the local government Charter of Rights which includes the following statements:
1. The occupancy agreement should be fully explained to you before you sign
2. Any repairs should be carried out as soon as possible; particularly those that could affect your health and safety.
3. Support staff should be trained in working with a range of people, including those who are vulnerable. They should treat you with understanding, care and respect.

Concerns raised about the resident being asked to sign his occupancy agreement under pressure and being threatened with eviction.

The licence agreement includes a statement which states that before signing the resident had read the agreement and understood the terms of the licence. The local government Charter of Rights, referred to by the landlord on its website, also states that the occupancy agreement should be fully explained to the resident before being signed.
It was therefore wholly understandable and reasonable for the resident to ask that someone ‘’sit down and go through’’ his agreement with him prior to him signing it.
Further to this, given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord and anyone acting on its behalf would also be expected, under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to have demonstrated that they had responded to the resident’s clearly articulated request for support in an appropriate manner. All parties would also be expected to treat the resident with care and respect, as set out in the Charter of Rights referred to on the landlord’s website.
Importantly the landlord would also be expected to be able to identify itself where it or those acting on its behalf had failed to do so and to take appropriate action to address this.
In a timeline of events provided by the CLO to the landlord on 12 July 2022, the landlord was advised that ‘’Multiple members of staff attended and sat down with him (the resident) for hours’’ and that they (the CLO) ‘‘finally got in contact with his aunty, who understood exactly, what we were telling him and spoke to him’’.
However, with the exception of the resident’s aunt being contacted, this service has seen no evidence to support the position given in the CLOs timeline of events. This service has however seen a copy of an email sent by the resident’s aunt to his MP on 1 June 2022, which makes reference to the events of that day saying that:
1. Her nephew wanted to sign and get things sorted out, but had asked to be provided with the full document, answers to his questions and for an explanation of parts he was not sure about.
2. The support person ended up getting angry with him for refusing to sign.
3. The resident managed to keep calm and explain that he really did want to sign but needed it to be complete and understandable. He was then told that he “had to sign or move out” and that this was naturally this was very upsetting.
When concerns are raised about the conduct of its employees, managing agent or support provider, the landlord would be expected to conduct a fair and objective investigation, including interviewing the resident, in order to get an understanding of the concern from their perspective. However, whilst it is evident that the landlord asked the managing agent/support provider about what happened on 1 June 2022, there is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to discuss his concerns with him.
As a result the landlord failed to evidence that it took the concerns raised seriously, or that it had conducted a fair investigation. It reached its conclusions and presented these as the factual position, without being able to evidence that it carried out a meaningful investigation, basing its findings purely on the accounts of its managing agent and support provider.
The attitude of the landlord towards the resident was neither appropriate nor solution focused, and its allegations that the resident had unreasonably contributed to the delay in him signing the agreement, based on what appears to be its limited investigation, was also neither fair nor reasonable.
Its response to the resident’s concerns about the text messages, that where sent to him when he asked for assistance prior to completing his licence agreement, was also wholly inappropriate, unfair and unreasonable.
Given the nature of the messages, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have recognised that these were threatening, insensitive and lacked empathy. It should also have recognised the failure of its support provider to recognise and respond appropriately given its obligations under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard. In such cases the landlord would be expected to apologise to the resident and take steps prevent further incidents occurring, including addressing the content of the text messages with the support provider, but it failed to do so.
Further, that the landlord could have had sight of what were clearly inappropriate and threatening messages and to have not identified any issues with them represents such a comprehensive failure that it could be indicative of a systemic issue within the landlord.
Given the seriousness of failings identified in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint, the understandable distress and upset caused and the lack of fairness shown to the resident, a finding of severe maladministration has been made.
As a result the landlord has been ordered to put things right by providing the resident with an apology from a director of the landlord and by making a payment of £1,000 compensation to him. This amount being in accordance with the amounts suggested in this Service’s remedies guidance in circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident and where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

The suitability of his occupancy agreement

Residents are likely to be issued a licence if people come in to give support or check on their well-being. A tenancy would most likely be provided if those support workers needed the resident’s permission to visit.
A licence will usually be an excluded licence if:
1. It is granted by a local authority to a homeless applicant for temporary accommodation;
2. the let premises is a hostel;
3. the landlord/licensor shares any of the accommodation with the licensee;
4. it granted solely for holiday purposes;
5. it is granted for other than money’s worth;
6. there is no intention to create legal relations;
7. the license is granted to a property guardian.
The resident had an excluded licence agreement with the landlord which states that the resident did not have exclusive possession of his accommodation or any part of the accommodation. The agreement goes on to explain that staff have to be able to check on occupiers of the accommodation at all times to see that occupiers are safe, have not hurt themselves etc. The licence states that the accommodation is provided as defined in section 622 of the Housing Act 1985.
Section 622 of the Housing Act 1985 defines ‘hostel’ as a building in which is provided:
1. Residential accommodation otherwise than in separate and self-contained sets of premises, and
2. Either board or facilities for the preparation of food adequate to the needs of those persons, or both.
Housing Benefit Regulations 2006/213 provide a similar definition of a hostel in regulation 2(1).
Whilst the above could imply that the correct licence agreement was provided to the resident, it is not within the remit for this Service, nor do we have the expertise, to make a binding decision as to whether this was in fact the case, as this would be a legal matter.
However, this service’s complaint handling code, now and at the time of the resident’s complaint, states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
It is evident that in this case the landlord failed to do so.
Instead of providing a reasonable response to the queries raised, it instead bounced the question back to the MP, asking the MP in its response to them on 29 June 2022, to explain why ‘they’ believed the agreement was not correct.
It again missed the opportunity to provide a reasonable explanation in its stage 1 response, when it provided a vague response, simply stating that the excluded licence agreement was ‘‘appropriate, due to the nature of the supported and shared accommodation’’.
Further, in its stage 2 response, and despite noting that the escalation request had included the resident’s continued concerns about the suitability of his licence agreement, it made no further mention of this aspect of the residents complaint in its response.
That the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the resident with a clear and meaningful explanation for why it was satisfied that the resident was provided with the correct type of occupancy agreement represents maladministration on its part. As a result, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay him £250 for the unnecessary distress its failure to do so caused him. This amount being in accordance with the amounts suggested in this Service’s remedies guidance in circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repair reports and concerns about the facilities provided at the property.

The repairs and concerns raised about the facilities provided at the property included:
1. Gas supply outage.
2. Sewage in the back garden and a blocked drain.
3. No fridge or freezer for the first 4 weeks the resident lived there.
4. The location of the fridge making the bathroom and second fire escape inaccessible.
5. A loose handrail on the staircase and loose floorboards.
6. The door code to the resident’s room not being provided
7. There being no vacuum cleaner to clean the property
8. The provision of internet.
The licence agreement seen by this service makes no reference to the landlord’s responsibility to repair. However, the landlord’s repairs policy states that
1. Its residents under the exempt supported housing scheme are vulnerable and may require an enhanced repairs service either on a permanent or temporary basis. It will provide this enhanced service and work with its agents and its repairs contractor to ensure those residents needs are known and acted upon. The repairs policy also states that this policy relates to both the landlord and its ‘‘agents’’.
2. It will make safe any emergency repairs within 4 hours and aims to complete the job within 24 hours.
3. It will aim to complete all routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
4. There may be works where certain parts or specialist engineers/services are required and these repairs may take longer than usual as a result. Residents will be kept informed of any potential delays with a repair and, where appropriate, temporary measures will be put in place to mitigate the situation.
5. It will work with individuals and communities where there are specific areas of concern for residents and will ensure that residents with disabilities and/or special requirements are dealt with sensitively and in line with their individual needs.
The excluded licence agreement refers to the landlord/its managing agent providing the resident with furniture, furnishings, fixtures and other items and that these are listed on Schedule 2 of the licence, and for which the resident pays a contents charge. A copy of the Schedule 2 has not been seen by this service.
Landlords also have a duty to review housing conditions and identify any hazards that might exist. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) details 29 different types of housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of occupants. Discharge of untreated foul waste onto paths/gardens and that all elements of stairs should be kept in good repair fall within the 29 hazards set out in the HHSRS.
It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. The landlord would also be expected to ensure at any managing agent, support provider or any other agent acting on its behalf did so too. This will enable it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. It cannot properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident.
As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with adequate information to enable us to fully investigate matters referred to us.
In this case, and despite extensive requests for evidence from this Service, the landlord has failed to provide any evidence to support the position it took with regards to any of the issues raised with the property.
As a result it has not been possible to reasonably to assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the various issues within the property was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, largely due to a lack of comprehensive records from the landlord.
However, what is evident it that there were multiple inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions in its responses, including:
1. That it repeatedly gave the wrong date in relation to the council’s visit to the property, stating that this was on 21 June 2022 when it was in fact on 20 June 2022.
2. In its response to the MP on 29 June 2022, it said that both it and the Council were satisfied that all services were provided and operating, when this was evidently not the case. The Council’s Exempt Accommodation Team having written to the landlord on 21 June 2022 stating that the service being provided by the landlord was a ‘’very poor example of accommodation and support within the sector’’ and asking that the resident be moved.
3. In its Stage 1 response saying that another visit had been booked with the water supplier with regards to the blocked drain and that the blockage may be on a neighbouring property, and yet in the same correspondence stated that the blocked drain had been resolved.
In light of the lack of evidence provided to this Service by the landlord to support its position and the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in its responses to the resident and his MP, the landlord has again failed to evidence that it took the concerns raised seriously, or that it had conducted a fair investigation.
As a result this Service finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the concerns raised about the property. Given the extent of these failings, and to provide the resident with redress for the impact of its record-keeping on the fair and thorough investigation of his concerns, as well as the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions in its responses, this service considers that a further payment of £1,000, by the landlord to the resident, would be fair and proportionate.
Whilst reviewing the evidence that had been provided by the landlord, this service had sight of comments on the landlord’s repairs policy which state that it does not have an adjustments policy and, following the listing for the Equality and Diversity Policy states that ‘‘apparently, we have one of these?’’. Given the dismissive nature of these comments, it is of concern to this Service that this could again be indicative of a systemic issue within the landlord, particular in regards to its understanding of its obligations to its vulnerable residents.

The support offered to the resident.

This service does not have the expertise to assess whether the support provided was appropriate and sufficient to meet the resident’s individual needs. However, what has been considered is whether the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s support needs, and the delivery of that support, were carried out in a timely manner and in accordance with its policies and procedures. This report has also considered how the landlord responded to the complaints made about this matter and whether its response was fair and reasonable.
The licence agreement states that as part of the licence conditions the resident is required to attend a support session with their allocated support worker at least once a week, in accordance with their support plan. The licence states that failure to attend support sessions or non-engagement with the support service will put the resident in breach of their licence agreement and may lead to the resident being evicted.
The landlord’s support checklist states that:
1. When the support staff meet the resident on arrival, the first thing they are to do is to complete the Housing Benefit application with the resident. Once this has been completed, the support staff are to complete a number of other documents including the support agreement which is to be explained to the resident, the initial assessment and needs assessment.
2. An appointment will then be made for the following week, to allow time for the support worker to complete a Risk Assessment and Support Plan before the next appointment. The document notes that the resident assessment should be completed within 48 hours.
3. An appointment is then to be made, within week of the resident sign up to go through and explain the support plan.
The earliest evidence of contact between the resident and the landlord’s support provider seen by this service was on 1 June 2022. This was in relation to the signing of the licence. No evidence has been provided of the support staff meeting the resident or completing the support agreement, the initial assessment or a needs assessment on that day. In fact there is no evidence of this being completed until 15 August 2022, over 2 months later. The landlord has also provided no evidence of any risk assessment being carried out.
The landlord has provided evidence of support being provided following the assessment on 15 August 2022, however, as explained above this service does not have the expertise to assess whether the support provided at that time was appropriate and sufficient to meet the resident’s individual needs.
What is evident is that the assessment of the resident’s needs was not completed in a timely manner nor was its response to the complaints made about this matter either fair or reasonable.
This is because at the time of its response to the resident’s MP on 29 June 2022 no assessment had taken place and so it is unclear how the landlord could have come to the conclusion at that time that ‘‘adequate support was provided to individual residents based on their specific needs and engagement’’.
It is evident from the landlord’s response that it had not carried out any meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns. Had it done so it would have been aware that no assessment had actually taken place at that time. It would also have been aware that the Council’s Exempt Accommodation team had raised concerns, on 21 June 2022, that the service it was providing was a ‘’very poor example of accommodation and support within the sector’’. It is noted that the Exempt Accommodation Team also asked at that time that the resident be moved.
That the landlord clearly failed to take the concerns seriously, to carry out a meaningful investigation or to take any action to address the concerns raised was a significant failure on its part.
Further to this the landlord was again advised by the Council’s Exempt Accommodation team, on 7 July 2022, of its concerns about the level of support and the ‘‘unprofessional’’ conduct of its support workers and managing agent. However despite this, the landlord again failed to evidence that it took any action to investigate the concerns that had been raised, simply stating in its response to the resident on 16 July 2022, that ‘‘the support was in line with the DWP guidelines and was more than minimal’’.
Again in its final response, the landlord dismissed the resident’s concerns about the support provided, instead blaming the resident for the quality of support being provided, saying that he was not fully engaged.
Having considered the available evidence, there appears to be a total disconnect between the reality of the situation and the landlord’s responses to the concerns raised about the level of support.
There was an unreasonable delay in any support plan being put in place, the landlord had also been repeatedly contacted by the Council’s Exempt Accommodation team expressing its concern about the level of support, and yet the landlord appears to have done nothing to address this.
It is also noted that, prior to its final response in which it dismissed the resident’s concerns about the support that had been provided, the outcome of an Housing Benefit’s review of the support provided at the property had resulted in it recouping all its funding from the start of the resident’s occupation of the property. It is also noted that the landlord was aware of this at the time of its final response, as it had written to the resident advising that it was initiating proceedings against him for arrears as a result of the housing benefit being recouped.
Given the significant level of failures identified above, and the significant impact that these had on a resident that the landlord knew was vulnerable, a finding has been made of severe maladministration in relation to this element of the resident’s complaint.
To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay him £1,000 compensation.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy, which was in place at the time of the residents’ complaint, states that:
1. A complaint can be made by any person or group of people affected by an activity or service provided, including MPs and councillors.
2. It has a 2 stage (internal) formal complaints process, noting that if the complainant remained dissatisfied with the outcome following its stage 2 response, they may refer their complaint to this Service.
3. At stage 1 it will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 2 working days and will aim to provide its response within 15 working days. It is noted that in the flowchart towards the end of the complaints policy the response time at stage 1 is incorrectly given as 20 working days.
4. At stage 2 it will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 3 working days and will aim to provide its response within 20 working days.
5. It wants to learn from its customer complaints as this helped it improve its services and that it has internal systems in place to make sure it learns from complaints and uses this information to improve services.
The initial complaint made to the landlord was by his MP on 22 June 2022. In their correspondence the MP clearly stated that they were writing to make a formal complaint on behalf of the resident.
On 29 June 2022, the landlord responded to the MP but did not explain that that had already received a complaint from the Council on 16 June 2022. This information was not provided until its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 July 2022.
As the complaint made by the Council was received on 16 June 2022, in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaint policy, the landlord should have provided its stage 1 response within 15 working days, and no later than 7 July 2022. However, its response was not issued until 6 working days outside of this timescale.
On 25 August 2022, this Service contacted the landlord, in response to contact from the resident’s MP, asking that it provide its final response. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints’ policy this request should have been confirmed within 2 working days and its stage 2 response issued within 20 working days.
The landlord failed to confirm the escalation request until 29 September 2022, over a month later. It also failed to provide its final response within 20 working days of the initial escalation request of 25 August 2022, not doing so until 24 October 2022, some 42 working days after the escalation request was made.
There were clearly some failures in the acknowledging and response times in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. However, this Service’s complaint handling code does not focus only on acknowledgement and response times but rather the landlord’s overall approach to its complaint handling.
The complaint handling code, in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, states that effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. This includes that a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings can be made. Further, where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.
In this case the landlord has failed to satisfy this service that it carried out a thorough and meaningful investigation into the complaint, and that, most notably, it appears to have relied solely on information provided by its managing agent and support provider. As a result of this failure, the landlord was unable to identify for itself the serious failures identified in this report.
There were also instances of landlord blaming resident and adopting an accusatory approach, for example saying that he had failed to engage with the support and that he had deliberately damaged the handrail. The landlord was insensitive to the resident’s concerns throughout and it was highly inappropriate of it to suggest that the resident was to blame, it having failed to investigate the matter appropriately and having provided no evidential basis on which to make such assertions.
Despite the evidently significant failures identified in this report, the landlord’s complaint responses provided limited acknowledgement of any failures. Even when it had acknowledged some failure on its part it failed to provide any meaningful apology or make any attempt to put things right. Neither did it give any indication as to what learning it would take from the complaint or how it would use this to improve its services.
Overall, and given the significant failures on its part, a finding of severe maladministration has been made with respect of its handling of the associated complaint. To be fair and make things right for the resident the landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay him £600.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has a similar complaint currently being investigated, and several other complaints awaiting investigation, where similar issues have been identified. We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to concerns raised about the resident being asked to sign his occupancy agreement under pressure and being threatened with eviction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to concerns raised about the suitability of the resident’s occupancy agreement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repair reports and concerns about the facilities provided at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to concerns raised about the support offered to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

With regards to the concerns raised about the resident being asked to sign his occupancy agreement under pressure and being threatened with eviction. The attitude of the landlord towards the resident was neither appropriate nor solution focused, and its allegations that the resident had unreasonably contributed to the delay in him signing the agreement, based on what appears to be its limited investigation, was also neither fair nor reasonable. Further, that the landlord could have had sight of what were clearly inappropriate and threatening messages and to have not identified any issues with them represents such a comprehensive failure that it could be indicative of a systemic issue within the landlord.
With regards to the concerns raised about the suitability of the resident’s occupancy agreement. Instead of providing a reasonable response to the queries raised, which it would be expected to do under this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord repeatedly failed to provide a clear and meaningful explanation for why it was satisfied that the resident was provided with the correct type of occupancy agreement.
With regards to its handling of repairs and concerns about the facilities provided. Despite extensive requests for evidence from this Service, the landlord failed to provide any evidence to support the position it took with regards to any of the issues raised with the property. Further there were inconsistencies and inaccuracies in its responses to the resident and his MP, it failed to evidence that it took the concerns raised seriously and again failed to evidence that it had conducted a fair investigation.
With regards to the support offered to the resident. The assessment of the resident’s needs was not completed in a timely manner nor was its response to the complaints made about this matter either fair or reasonable. There was an unreasonable delay in any support plan being put in place, the landlord had also been repeatedly contacted by the Council’s Exempt Accommodation team expressing its concern about the level of support, and yet appears to have done nothing to address this. There also appears to be a total disconnect between the reality of the situation and the landlord’s responses to the concerns raised about this matter.
With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling. There were clearly some failures in the acknowledging and response times in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. However, the most signficant failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling was that it failed to carried out a thorough and meaningful investigation into the complaint, relying solely on information provided by its managing agent and support provider. There were also instances of landlord blaming resident and adopting an accusatory approach. The landlord’s complaint responses provided limited acknowledgement of any failures. Even when it had acknowledged some failure on its part it failed to provide any meaningful apology or make any attempt to put things right. Neither did it give any indication as to what learning it would take from the complaint or how it would use this to improve its services.

Orders

That within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for the chief executive of the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £3,850 made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the failures identified in relation to the signing of the resident’s occupancy agreement.
  2. £250 for the failures with regards to its response to concerns raised about the suitability of the resident’s occupancy agreement.
  3. £1,000 for the failures identified in relation to its response to concerns raised about repairs and facilities at the property.
  4. £1,000 for the failures identified with regards to its response to the concerns raised about the support offered to the resident.
  5. £600 for its failures with regards to its handling of the associated complaint.
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.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practice relation to the service failures identified in this determination. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks, and be conducted by a senior leadership team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Its monitoring and oversight of third parties (its ‘agents’) acting on its behalf in delivering services to its residents.
2. Its and its agents failures in relation to its obligations under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard. This is to be done alongside this Services Spotlight report on Attitude, respect, and rights – A relationship of equals published on our website on 23 January 2023.
3. Its and its agents record keeping process, in light of both the findings of this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report.
4. Its and its agents staff training, to ensure that this provides all staff acting on its behalf with the necessary skills, knowledge, and guidance to ‘ensure that residents with disabilities and/or special requirements are dealt with sensitively and in line with their individual needs’, as stated in the landlord’s repairs policy.
5. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar failings by the landlord, at this and other properties, from 1 June 2022 to 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 landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised, to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 12 weeks respectively to confirm it has complied with the above orders.