Reliance Social Housing C.I.C (202211732)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211732

Reliance Social Housing C.I.C

20 February 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property given his disabilities.
2. The suitability of the resident’s occupancy agreement.
3. The landlord’s request for the resident to sign a blank licence agreement and failure to issue a fully completed copy of the licence agreement.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the support provided.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident had an excluded licence agreement which commenced on 31 May 2022. It is understood the resident was rehoused by the landlord to the property following concerns about the condition of his previous home. The landlord has not provided this Service with any details about the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident has, however, confirmed he has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), other specified dissociative disorder and autistic spectrum disorder. The resident moved out of the property before the landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 November 2022.
The property is a 4-bedroom house of multiple occupation that was managed on behalf of the landlord by a management agent. The accommodation was classified as supported exempt accommodation and included the provision of care, support and supervision to the residents living in the house. Support was provided by a different organisation and not commissioned by the council. This meant that whilst the council 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.
Representatives from the council’s supported exempt accommodation team and adult social care undertook an inspection of the property on 20 June 2022. This concluded ‘‘there were clear failures in the management of the building’’ and the residents ‘‘were not being adequately supported.’’ The council asked the landlord to rehouse the residents following the inspection and referred the concerns regarding the level of support provision to its housing benefits team.
The resident’s MP made a formal complaint on 1 July 2022. She said:
1. The house was not suitable for the resident given his disabilities and the adaptations recommended by the occupational therapist were not completed. No formal assessment was carried out when the resident moved in.
2. Despite seeking written permission and being given repeated assurances, the landlord had not fitted a lock to the gate. This was needed for the assistance dog the resident had requested.
3. The support sessions were sporadic and the resident’s request for help had been ignored. The staff were also patronising and condescending towards the resident.
4. Pages of the licence agreement were missing and it had not been fully completed.
5. The licence agreement did not provide appropriate tenancy rights.
The landlord responded to the MP on 4 August 2022. It said:
1. The resident was offered accommodation, which he inspected and accepted.
2. It was aware of the resident’s needs and had discussed these with social services and his occupational therapist (OT). The OT had made an application to fund the required adaptions.
3. The resident had not made a request for a lock to be fitted to the gate. His request would be considered once his application for an assistance dog had been approved in accordance with health and safety considerations.
4. The resident was receiving support above the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) guidelines.
5. The licence agreement was appropriate given the resident was housed in shared accommodation and receiving support and training.
The MP wrote to the landlord again on 9 August 2022. She asked the landlord to confirm what steps it was taking to make the property more accessible for the resident and to confirm if it was satisfied with the level of support offered. She also said the resident could not progress with his application for an assistance dog without a lock on the gate. The MP told this Service on 1 September 2022, the resident asked for a property with a wheelchair accessible entrance or one with small steps and a grab rail. No reasonable adjustments were made and he struggled to get in and out of the house unaided. She also said he was given a blank and incomplete licence agreement to sign. In addition, the MP noted that there were two licence agreements on file with different dates and signatures. She said this demonstrated poor record keeping or potentially fraudulent activity by the landlord.
The council told the resident on 14 September 2022 that his housing benefit claim had been terminated. It said this was because the type of tenancy he was given meant he could not make a claim. It also said it would recover the overpayment of £3,198 from his landlord.
The landlord confirmed to this Service on 20 September 2022 that it treated the correspondence from the MP as an enquiry and not a complaint. It issued its stage 1 complaint response around this time, although it is not clear when as the letter is undated. It confirmed:
1. The OT assessment was carried out on 9 February 2022. This concluded wheelchair access was already available and only a grab rail was required. The OT had also submitted an application to fund the required adaptations.
2. It would put a lock on the gate if it did not cause a health and safety risk.
3. It was satisfied support workers were contacting the resident, but there were occasions when he had refused to engage.
4. It gave the resident a blank copy of the licence agreement as he wanted to study it before signing. He was given a licence agreement because he was residing in shared accommodation, where he was receiving support and training.
The resident’s MP asked for the complaint to be escalated on 23 September 2022. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 29 September 2022 and it offered to meet with the resident. It issued a14 day tenancy termination notice on the following day and advised the resident his housing benefit claim had been cancelled because he had failed to engage with support sessions. He was told he needed to pay the rent arrears or leave the property by 14 October 2022. The MP shared an email she had received from the council with this Service on 3 October 2022 confirming the resident’s housing benefit was cancelled because there was no evidence he was being provided with any support by the landlord or its care provider.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 November 2022. It said:
1. The support workers allocated to the resident had undertaken the required training and it was satisfied that he was receiving more than the minimum support levels set out in the DWP guidelines.
2. It was unable to corroborate the resident’s concerns that staff were condescending and patronising.
3. An OT assessment was undertaken on 9 February 2022 and only a grab rail was required. It would have also considered fitting a lock on the gate had his request for an assistance dog been approved.
4. It was satisfied it had provided the resident with a completed and signed licence agreement. A blank copy of the licence agreement was given to the resident at his request.
5. It was satisfied the resident was issued with the correct licence and no further action was required.
The resident’s MP asked this Service to investigate the complaint on 21 November 2022. She said she did not feel the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns in a supportive or proactive manner. In particular, she noted that it did not assess the resident’s needs when he moved in or provide reassurance to make the necessary adjustments. Neither did it provide effective support or provide an explanation why an excluded licence agreement was suitable for residents living in supported accommodation. The MP said the resident wanted compensating for the distress that was caused and a formal apology for the treatment he received.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property given his disabilities.

This service does not have the expertise to assess whether the property was suitable for the resident or whether it met his needs. We have, however, considered whether the landlord’s assessment was carried out in a timely manner and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
Whilst the landlord arranged an OT assessment in February 2022, this related to a different property. There is no evidence the landlord undertook an assessment of the resident’s needs prior to him moving into the new property. Neither did it acknowledge a lock needed to be put on the gate before permission would be granted for an assistance dog. This was despite the MP advising the landlord of this on 9 August 2022. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Equality Act, 2010. Under the Equality Act, 2010, the landlord has a legal duty to minimise the disadvantages related to a person’s protected characteristics. There is no evidence the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s disabilities, as defined by the Equality Act, 2010 or whether it needed to make any reasonable adjustments. This was a service failure.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged for a further OT assessment to be carried out in accordance with its adaptations policy. This says residents will not be allowed to move into a property unless an OT assessment has been carried out and the adaptations within the property meet their specific needs. The policy also says properties will be adapted for residents wherever possible at short notice.
There is no evidence to confirm the resident was offered a ground floor room but chose an upstairs bedroom instead as reported by the landlord. Neither has the landlord provided evidence confirming the property was accessible for wheelchairs or the resident was able to climb the stairs, as stated in its correspondence with the MP. This is a failure. It is good practice for landlords to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. It failed to do so in this case.
In summary, the landlord failed to take account of the resident’s disabilities when it offered him alternative accommodation. It did not undertake an assessment or consider whether it needed to make reasonable adjustments to ensure he could access the property. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It also showed a lack of fairness towards the resident. Given the level of failings, a finding of maladministration has been made with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint.

The suitability of the resident’s occupancy agreement.

The resident had an excluded licence agreement. This stated the resident did not have exclusive possession of his accommodation or any part of the accommodation. It also said the landlord and its managing agent ‘‘have the absolute right to enter your accommodation at any time without notice and will exercise this right with consideration for your wellbeing and / or that of other occupiers.’’ The licence states that the accommodation is provided as defined in section 622 of the Housing Act,1985.

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 is 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.
Section 622 of the Housing Act, 1985 defines a “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): means a building in which there is provided for persons generally or for a class of persons, domestic accommodation, otherwise than in separate and self-contained premises, and either board or facilities for the preparation of food adequate to the needs of those persons, or both.
Whilst the above could imply that the correct licence agreement was issued, it is not within the remit of this Service, nor do we have the expertise, to make a legally binding decision as to whether this was the case. This would be a legal matter. However, this Service would expect the landlord to have provided a reasonable explanation in response to any concerns raised as to why a particular type of occupancy agreement had been issued.
It is evident the MP raised concerns about the licence agreement and the level of rights this offered the resident on a number of occasions. It is also evident the MP asked the landlord for an explanation as to why this type of occupancy agreement was used given the vulnerability of the resident. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it was satisfied the resident had signed the correct licence agreement, it did not address the MP’s main concern regarding the suitability of the agreement and why this was used. This was a missed opportunity.
The landlord missed a further opportunity to provide an explanation when it issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was not appropriate given the resident’s continued concerns about the suitability of the licence agreement. The landlord did not provide a full explanation until November 2022 when it issued its final complaint response. This was after the resident moved out. The landlord’s repeated failure to provide the resident with a clear and meaningful explanation represents maladministration on its part.

The landlord’s request for the resident to sign a blank licence agreement and failure to issue a fully completed copy of the licence agreement.

It is noted from the evidence provided by the MP that she has expressed concerns about potentially fraudulent activity in relation to the licence agreement. Whilst this Service does not doubt the concerns raised, this would potentially be a criminal matter and as such, falls outside the remit of this Service to investigate. We have, however, considered the resident’s claims that he was asked to sign an incomplete licence agreement and never received a copy of the completed document.
The housing records relating to this aspect of the resident’s complaint are confusing given there are 2 copies of the licence agreement held on file. Both have been signed and also witnessed by a representative from the managing agent, but on different dates. The licence agreement dated 19 May 2022 was not fully completed and is missing key information about the resident and the property. It is unclear whether the landlord referred to this version as the ‘blank’ copy it provided to the resident, even though it had been signed and witnessed. Given the lack of clarity, it was reasonable for the resident to assume he was asked to sign a blank licence agreement.
The landlord did not acknowledge there were 2 licence agreements or provide an explanation as to why this was the case, despite a request to do so. This led to confusion and caused the resident distress. The landlord did not acknowledge this at any point or offer an apology to the resident.
There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the fully completed licence agreement signed on 31 May 2022, even though it was asked to do so on several occasions. This was not appropriate. The licence agreement is a legally binding contract and the resident was entitled to a copy of the document. Given the above findings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the support provided.

This service does not have the expertise to assess whether the support provided to the resident was appropriate and sufficient to meet his needs. We have, however, considered whether the landlord carried out an assessment of the resident’s support needs and if it delivered this support in a timely manner and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The licence agreement states the resident was required to attend weekly support sessions with his allocated support worker. It also states that failure to attend support sessions or non-engagement with the support service would put the resident in breach of his licence agreement and may lead to him being evicted. The landlord’s support checklist says it will meet the resident on arrival and complete a housing benefit application. It also says an initial assessment will be undertaken and a support agreement completed. A risk assessment and support plan are drawn up the following week.
The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence regarding the support it offered the resident. Given the lack of evidence, it is unclear how the landlord reached the conclusions it made. It is evident from the landlord’s response to the MP that it had not carried out any meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns. Had it done so it would have been aware the council’s exempt accommodation team raised concerns on 20 June 2022 about the level of support offered and had referred the matter to its housing benefits team. The landlord appears to have done nothing to address these concerns. The landlord’s failure to carry out a meaningful investigation or to take any action to address the concerns raised was a significant failure on its part.
The landlord dismissed the resident’s concerns about the lack of support again in its final complaint response and accused him of failing to engage with his support worker. This accusatory approach was insensitive and inappropriate. It also came after the council’s housing benefit team had decided to ‘clawback’ the resident’s housing benefit given the lack of support provided. The landlord was aware of this decision and had told the resident it was initiating proceedings against him for arrears as a result of the housing benefit being recouped.
There is no evidence the landlord carried out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s reports that support staff were condescending and patronising. This was a failure on the landlord’s part. 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.
In summary, the landlord failed to carry out an assessment of the resident’s support needs or deliver support in a timely manner. It dismissed his claims and the concerns raised by the council’s exempt accommodation team and the MP. It is evident the situation had a detrimental impact on the resident, who said he was ignored, forgotten and dismissed. The significant failures by the landlord in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint has resulted in a finding of severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The housing records confirm the landlord did not treat the complaint made by the resident’s MP on 1 July 2022 as a complaint. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code or the landlord’s complaints policy. This says a complaint can be made by ‘‘anyone affected by an activity or service provided by the landlord, including MPs.’’ The landlord’s failure to do this caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing his complaint.
It is unclear from the housing records when the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response given the letter was undated. It is, however, evident the landlord did not respond within 15 working days of receiving the complaint, as set out in its complaints policy. It is also evident the MP chased up the landlord for a response and asked this Service for assistance to progress the matter on 1 September 2022.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not fully address the resident’s complaint. In particular, it did not confirm whether a formal assessment was completed prior to him moving into the property or address his concerns about pages missing from the licence agreement. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says 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. The landlord’s comments about the level of support offered contradicts the conclusions reached by the council’s exempt accommodation team in June 2022.
The housing records confirm the resident’s MP asked for the complaint to be escalated on 23 September 2022. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the request on 29 September 2022 and offer to meet the resident, this was done the day before it issued a notice to terminate his tenancy. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident when he could expect to receive a response to his complaint.
The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 7 November 2022; some 6 weeks after the request to escalate the complaint was made. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident there would be a delay. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy. Again, the landlord’s comments about the level of support offered contradict the conclusions reached by the council and its decision to ‘clawback’ housing benefit given the lack of support provided.
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, 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 the serious failures identified in this report. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery.
In summary, there were unreasonable delays in the handling of the resident’s complaint by the landlord. The overall tone of the landlord’s response lacked empathy, did not show it had considered the individual circumstances of the resident or the impact he had described. The landlord also dismissed the resident’s concerns about the lack of support and accused him of failing to engage with his support worker without evidence. As noted earlier in this report, this accusatory approach was insensitive and inappropriate. Considering these failings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s concerns about the support provided.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property given his disabilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the occupancy agreement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect to its request for the resident to sign a blank licence agreement and failure to issue a fully completed copy of the licence agreement.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord’s chief executive is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings set out in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £1,750 compensation directly to the resident, made up as follows:
1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its response to the concerns raised about the support provided.
2. £700 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident in its handling of his concerns about the suitability of the property.
3. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its response to his concerns about the suitability of the occupancy agreement.
4. £400 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident in its handling of his complaint.
5. £50 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident in relation to the request for him to sign a blank licence agreement and the failure to issue a fully completed copy of the licence agreement.
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 you and should not be offset against arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of this case. This must be done in conjunction with case 202204234 with a single report produced covering both cases. The review must be carried out within twelve weeks and be conducted by a senior leadership member independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The outcome of the review must be shared with the resident, his MP, its Board and this Service. The review must include (but not limited to):
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, from 1 June 2022 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 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.