The Community Housing Group Limited (202305538)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305538

The Community Housing Group Limited

13 December 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s decision to warn him about what it considered to be unreasonable behaviour from him during a phone call.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy, which began in 2010. The property description on the tenancy agreement indicates that the landlord was aware that the resident required some support when he moved in. 

Restriction on the resident’s communication with the landlord

3. On 24 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident, with the subject line “abusive calls”. In its letter it:
   1. Confirmed that residents have the right to express their views, ask questions about its service, and to make suggestions;
   2. Said that it would take action to “manage the situation”, if it considered communication from residents to be “unreasonable”;
   3. Said that over the “last few months”, the resident had used “rude and abusive” language towards its staff during phone calls, which made it “difficult to have a reasoned conversation” with him;
   4. Explained that it expected its staff to be able to work without being abused, and warned the resident that his behaviour was breaching the terms of his tenancy. It had decided that to “avoid further risk” to his tenancy, it “must insist that [the resident] no longer call [it]” unless he needed to raise an emergency repair. It told him that “all communication that you have with us should now be by letter or email only”;
   5. Advised the resident that he could ask for this decision to be reviewed.
4. The landlord has advised this Service that the letter “implied” that the restriction was indefinite (potentially permanent), and confirmed that it did not provide the resident with either an end date to the restriction or a timeframe within which the decision to restrict his contact would be reconsidered.
5. The landlord has advised us that it placed an alert on its customer relations computer system, advising its staff of the restriction on the resident’s communication, in February 2023. 
6. The landlord’s unreasonable customer behaviour procedure sets out its expectation that its staff will complete a form before implementing a restriction on customer contact. The form contains sections to record its considerations including:
   1. Whether the resident been asked to reduce contact or modify their behaviour;
   2. Whether it is aware that the resident has a disability;
   3. If it is aware of the resident having a disability, whether “suitable allowances”  have been made before considering the proposed restriction.
7. The landlord has advised us that it could not “source” a completed form in relation to the decision to restrict the resident’s contact, which it said was “due to record keeping issues”.

The resident’s complaint

8. On 28 April 2023, the resident called the landlord to report a leak. The landlord’s transcript of this call has been shared with the resident and this Service.
9. During the call, the call handler transferred the resident to speak to her manager, and the resident was advised that this was because he had sworn at her. The resident immediately denied this, said he would not swear at a woman, and called the call handler a “lying cow”. He said he wanted to make a formal complaint about her “f***ing lying”. He added that he recognised he was now swearing, but this was because he was “mad” at what had been alleged. He said that he wanted the landlord to tell the call handler to call him to apologise for telling lies, and that he thought it should sack her.
10. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint response as a result of its conversation with the resident, and on 2 May 2023 it recorded that it had received two inbound calls from the resident, and made one outbound call, to discuss the matter. It recorded that it had further telephone conversations with him on 4 May 2023, and that its complaint handler gave the resident their direct number to make it easier for him to contact them in future.
11. Also on 4 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It recognised that the resident did not swear at the call handler, and apologised for initially saying he had. However, the complaint handler said they had listened to a recording of the call in question, and could see that his tone could have been perceived as “frustrated” and “aggressive”. The landlord did not, therefore, consider that compensation was necessary.
12. The resident called the landlord on 15 May 2023 and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord noted that during the call he told the call handler they were a “fraud”, did not know how to do their job, and that he hoped their day was “bad”.
13. The landlord held a stage 2 complaint meeting with the resident over the phone during its complaint investigation. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 June 2023. It:
    1. Advised the resident that a senior manager had listened to the call recording, and there would not be a change to its stage 1 decision. It wanted to reiterate its acknowledgement of the fact that the resident had not sworn at the call handler, and its apology for this being said;
    2. Advised that it was reviewing its process, and thanked the resident for his feedback. It acknowledged that residents “can feel frustrated particularly when experiencing a problem in their home”, and it would train all its new employees “to recognise these emotions and provide our customers with a positive experience”.

Events after the stage 2 complaint was concluded

14. The landlord removed the alert regarding the restrictions on the resident’s communications from its computer system in August 2023. It did not notify the resident when this was removed.
15. The landlord has advised us that it terminated calls with the resident on 28 November 2023, after he swore and its staff perceived his behaviour as abusive.
16. The landlord has advised this Service that the resident completed its ‘customer census’ in January 2024, and did not declare any vulnerabilities to it.
17. On 21 February 2024, the resident requested that the landlord remove his phone number from its records. On 7 March 2024 he called it to remind it that he was not allowed to call it except in an emergency, and that any postal correspondence should be sent with a freepost envelope, because he did not want to be “out of pocket” when responding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

18. The resident believes the landlord has defamed his character. This is not a finding we are able to make, as we issue decisions on whether there has been maladministration on the part of the landlord.
19. The matter of defamation of character is instead one that may be decided by an appropriate court.
20. In our investigation, we have looked at what the landlord did, and whether there were any failings in this.

Assessment

21. As set out above, a contact restriction was already in place when the resident called the landlord on 28 April 2023, and he was therefore aware that the landlord had concerns about his conduct.
22. On the matter of whether the resident swore at the first call handler on 28 April 2023, the call transcript appears to show that he swore in conversation with a third party, in the background of the call. It shows that he became frustrated in his tone towards the call handler before he was transferred to speak to a manager.
23. The call transcript shows that the manager took his denial that he had sworn at the call handler seriously, directly addressed this in the call with him and took the appropriate step of ensuring a complaint was logged so that the matter could be further investigated.
24. The landlord demonstrated an open and reasonable approach when it shared the transcript of the call with the resident, at his request.
25. The call transcript supports the landlord’s assessment that its staff had focussed on the tone of the resident’s communication, rather than whether or not he swore, when deciding whether his behaviour was unreasonable. The resident swore several times during his conversation with the manager, but because his tone was perceived to be less aggressive, the manager continued with the call. This was a reasonable approach to take.
26. The landlord has apologised to the resident several times for the initial comment that he had sworn at the call handler, and its complaint responses acknowledged this at both stages. The resident should be reassured that it has taken appropriate steps to respond to his complaint, and it has demonstrated a willingness to learn from his experience.
27. We therefore do not find fault in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, or its decision not to pay the resident compensation. We have considered the level of actual detriment caused to the resident, and it is our opinion that the landlord’s apology was proportionate in the circumstances.
28. However, during our investigation of the circumstances surrounding the resident’s complaint, we have made some observations about the landlord’s communication with the resident, and make some recommendations below.
29. Our expectations regarding landlords’ management of unacceptable behaviour from residents is set out on our website: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/guidance-notes/managing-unacceptable-behaviour-policy/
30. We understand that sometimes landlords judge that placing specific restrictions on contact, such as limiting the methods of communication that can be used by a resident, will help protect their staff and best enable them to respond to matters raised in the course of a tenancy. We do, however, specify that these restrictions should not be set indefinitely, and the period after which they will be reviewed to see if they are still necessary should be agreed at the outset.
31. In this case, the landlord did not set a point at which it would review the restriction it had implemented. This was not a fair approach, and did not give the resident an opportunity to show that he was willing to change his behaviour.
32. We observe that further confusion was caused to the resident about the landlord’s position, after its staff spoke with him multiple times over the phone, at times taking his details specifically so they could use this method of contact. The landlord’s alert on its system was removed in August 2023, and it is not clear why this happened or why the resident was not informed at the time. The potential for distress to be caused to the resident by the lack of clarity around its expectations was made clear when the resident later asked the landlord to remove his phone number from its records, to prevent calls being made that should not be.
33. Of further concern is the landlord’s inability to show that it had given due consideration to the proportionality of implementing the restriction in the first place. It was unable to demonstrate that it had followed its own policy and completed the relevant form before making its decision. We note this particularly because it would have given the landlord an opportunity to consider whether the resident had any additional needs or vulnerabilities, or required any adjustments, before making its decision.
34. The landlord did not provide this Service with any evidence of warnings issued to the resident ahead of the step it took to indefinitely limit the majority of his contact to non-verbal methods. As discussed above, it is unfair for landlords to implement such restrictions without first notifying residents of the behaviour they are concerned about, and giving residents a chance to modify their behaviour.
35. We understand that the manager the resident spoke to in the call of 28 April 2023 was attempting to ensure the resident’s main concern, the ongoing leak, could be addressed, and likely made decisions to that end during the call. However, we observe that some of the resident’s comments, such as calling the call handler a “cow” could reasonably be considered unacceptable behaviour, and the landlord did not appear to explain to the resident either in the moment or following the call that any language he had used was unacceptable.
36. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s specific complaint, and therefore we can only make recommendations for the actions we believe will best resolve the situation.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to warn the resident about what it considered to be unreasonable behaviour from him during a phone call with it. 

Recommendations

38. We recommend that the landlord carry out a review of the contact restriction and consider:
    1. Whether it is still necessary;
    2. How it can ensure its staff are aware of the conditions of the restriction and abide by them;
    3. When it should next be reviewed;
    4. Whether it is satisfied that it is fully aware of the resident’s circumstances and confirmed that he has no vulnerabilities that could be relevant;
    5. How it will ensure that its form, containing details of its considerations, is stored in an appropriate location for future reference.
39. We recommend that the landlord then contact the resident and explain what decision it has made and how long this will apply for.
40. We recommend the landlord reviews its unreasonable customer behaviour procedure and consider adding in guidance for its staff so that it complies with the Ombudsman’s expectations that contact restrictions are not implemented indefinitely.