ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

A resident in supported housing managed by an agent on behalf of Paddington Churches Housing Association complained to the housing ombudsman about a range of problems: repairs to his heating had been subject to significant delays; the agent had filled in a "move-on" referral form for the complainant without consulting him; the form contained damaging and unfounded allegations and when the tenant made a complaint to PCHA, the matter was not handled satisfactorily.

PCHA had in place mechanisms to monitor the performance and conduct of its agents. However, the investigation showed a number of instances where it did not manage agents effectively, thereby failing to ensure an appropriate level of services for residents. The investigation identified a lack of clarity on the part of PCHA as to the differences between temporary and permanent occupancy, licences and tenancies, and the rights emanating from these different tenure categories. This compounded its handling of the problems.

Confusion and inconsistency
The investigation uncovered confusion and inconsistency in PCHA's procedures for reporting disrepair. PCHA decided to remove the residents' right to use a contact number, even in emergencies. This was done in breach of stated policies and procedures and put residents at risk unnecessarily. PCHA acted in disregard of regulatory guidance in force at the time and of established good practice, which pointed to landlords having to consult on changes that affected residents.

In addition, the guidance PCHA issued to contractors and managing agents was confusing and inconsistent with the information given to residents.

Moreover, although PCHA had a compensation policy for service failures that applied to general housing residents, no such policy existed for supported housing residents. They were therefore unable to rely on stated written procedures and guidelines. The ombudsman was critical of this two-tiered system that clearly put the most vulnerable at a disadvantage.

Move-on referral
The investigation found that the managing agent had filled in the move-on referral form in an inappropriate, unethical and unprofessional manner. It had not consulted the complainant, which was contrary to stated policy. It had also refused him an appeal and access to data held about him, which he was entitled to see under the 1998 Data Protection Act.

The managing agent had filled in the referral form in an inappropriate and unethical manner

The resident was distressed by hearsay allegations contained in the referral, of which he was not aware until he asked to see the completed form. As the allegations were totally unsubstantiated, the ombudsman concluded that their inclusion in the move-on referral seemed meaningless and malicious.

Complaint-handling
PCHA had a separate complaints procedure for people living in supported housing, which ended with a written appeal to the chief executive. There was no access to a personal hearing. The ombudsman found that denying certain occupiers whom PCHA regarded as "temporary" the right to a panel hearing at appeal stage was unfair and discriminatory. It also found that supported housing residents were disadvantaged by having to go through two complaint procedures and that this was unreasonably onerous to vulnerable people.

When the resident wanted to complain about the move-on referral, the agent refused him the right to bring his complaint to the appeal panel, which was the last stage of the agent's procedure. The agent had no right to do so, as its own literature gave an automatic right to appeal. PCHA was asked to intervene in relation to that refusal, and the agent eventually relented. But there were numerous problems around the conduct of the hearing. The chair of the panel had been involved in a past dispute with the complainant and was dealing with another official complaint brought by him. The chair was eventually changed, but the person in question remained a panel member. Despite being aware of the problem, PCHA allowed the hearing to go ahead, in direct contradiction of an earlier undertaking that the panel members would be agreed with the complainant. At one point during the hearing, that panel member gave evidence on behalf of the agent, thus demonstrating partiality against the complainant.

The appeal process was further delayed and compromised by the agent's refusal to disclose relevant documents, and by PCHA's reneging on an earlier undertaking that the complainant would be allowed his own witnesses. There was poor record-keeping and lack of clarity in written communications. PCHA failed to clarify or to address altogether crucial issues.

The ombudsman found severe maladministration on the part of PCHA. The problems caused to the complainant were disproportionate to the initial difficulties. Matters were unnecessarily dragged out, with apparent disregard to the resident's vulnerability. This was alarming, especially in the context of services geared towards supporting people with disabilities.