Ombudsman criticises council for “significant failings” under Equality Act that exacerbated poor mental health of resident

The Housing Ombudsman has found severe maladministration for Tandridge District Council after the local authority “did not abide by its duties under the Equality Act or its own safeguarding policy”, leading to the exacerbation of a resident’s poor mental health.

The council has been told to pay £1,000 in compensation and review its ‘vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustment’ policies.

The Ombudsman's report noted that the period around the complaint started as the housing officer with responsibility for the resident was told that she had recently attempted to end her own life.

The resident’s case had been referred to the Community Harm and Risk Management Meeting (CHARMM) by the council, and a few months into the period of the complaint, an Independent Mental Health Advocacy started acting on her behalf, revealed the Ombudsman.

The resident behind the complaint has “complex physical and mental health disabilities” which include long term pain management, poor mobility, mixed personality disorder and depression, the report revealed.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that instead of referring the resident to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub, the housing officer instead asked if the attempt to end her life was “accidental” and added he was “inundated” with concerns about her and her sister’s behaviour.

The Ombudsman noted that it was not until nine months after this, and once the housing officer had left the landlord’s employment, that the case services team leader referred the resident to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub, Adult Social Care, the Community Mental Health Recovery Services and her GP.

When asked by the Independent Mental Health Advocacy not to contact the resident by phone, the housing officer said that was “unrealistic” and “did not take it on board”, the Ombudsman revealed.

A couple of months later, the housing officer turned up “unannounced with police presence” to inspect the residents CCTV, “causing distress to the resident”. The Ombudsman found that following this, an email sent from the housing officer was “accusatory and lacked respect”, stating that the position of the resident’s camera was clear evidence that she was “trying to provoke her neighbours”.

Another visit was planned due to “ongoing tension between the resident and her neighbour”. The Ombudsman said that in this instance, the housing officer did email the Independent Mental Health Advocacy prior to the visit.

However, the report noted that the housing officer was “vague on the details” and “failed to consider the needs of the resident”, who had just the day before reported worsening mental health.

The Ombudsman said: “The housing officer’s insistence that the resident could not refuse to engage with them and that they needed to be able to address concerns as they arose was a further example of the housing officer either not understanding, or not applying their duty under the Equality Act 2010.”

Two senior members of council staff found no evidence that the case had been mishandled and “insisted that the housing officer would not be changed”, revealed the Ombudsman.

He found however that they did not consider any failings under the Equality Act, or the council’s own safeguarding policy.

The report noted there was also “no evidence” that the senior members of staff spoke to either the resident or the Independent Mental Health Advocacy as part of the investigation.

The Independent Mental Health Advocacy asked to have the resident’s housing officer changed, saying contact from him was “exacerbating the resident’s mental health”.

The Ombudsman investigated and concluded that the landlord “failed to take the concerns raised seriously or conduct a fair investigation”.

He said: “The attitude of the landlord towards a professional advocate was neither appropriate nor solution focused, and its allegations that the Independent Mental Health Advocacy had been confrontational, dismissive and contributed to difficulties in communication with the resident, based on what appears to be its limited investigation, was also neither fair nor reasonable.”

The report revealed that both the resident and Independent Mental Health Advocacy described the housing officer’s approach as “aggressive and intimidating”.

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to apologise to the resident in person, pay £1,000 in compensation and review its Vulnerabilities and Reasonable Adjustment policies.

Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said: “Under the Equality Act, the landlord had the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, such as how it provided information to the resident and communication through a representative or intermediary.

“At the heart of this case, there were three different officers involved, but none took appropriate action.

“Failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments or to act in accordance with its own safeguarding policy caused serious detriment."

Blakeway added: “The failure by the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure it understood the needs of the resident also led to missed opportunities which adversely impacted the resident.

“On top of this, there was a complete absence of recognition, acknowledgement or apology from the landlord for its failings, or to take any action to put things right.”

The Ombudsman revealed that in its learning from this case, the landlord said it had “provided staff with refresher training on these issues, undertaken a review of its staffing structure and will implement a new Enforcement Policy later this year”.

In a statement Tandridge District Council said: “It is recognised by the council that there have been failings in the handling of this case and insufficient consideration given to the needs and vulnerabilities of the resident on this occasion. We are sincerely sorry for the distress and inconvenience these failings have caused.

“Whilst it was recognised by the Ombudsman that several reasonable adjustments were made during the handling of the case, we have learnt several lessons from this case and have since undertaken many improvements to ensure that our internal processes are as robust as possible.”

These steps have included:

• Refresher training for all customer-facing staff is to be delivered on Safeguarding, Vulnerability, Equality and Diversity and requirements for reasonable adjustments.
• A review of the staffing structure has already been undertaken as part of a council-wide programme to ensure a single point of contact (dedicated housing officer) is assigned to a case. Each case is reviewed monthly by senior officers within the department to ensure necessary support and signposting measures are in place for residents and all options to resolve matters are considered.
• As part of the new staffing structure, a Resident Engagement Manager has been appointed to oversee all aspects of tenant engagement and will focus on supporting those with vulnerabilities to access Council services. The council’s Tenant and Leaseholder Engagement Strategy will underpin this work.
• Both the council’s Vulnerability Policy and Equality and Diversity Scheme are easily accessible on the website.
• All staff responsible for managing complaints have attended recent training to ensure complaints are managed appropriately and in accordance with best practice and regulation.
• To ensure best practice and meet changes to legislation, the council’s Anti-Social Behaviour process was reviewed in 2022. This process will form part of a council-wide Enforcement Policy due for completion later in 2023.

Tandridge added: “We highly value our relationship with the Housing Ombudsman service and we’re grateful to them for allowing an opportunity to highlight learnings from this case to help drive service improvements which benefit our residents.”