Cheltenham Young Men’s Christian Association (202310974)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310974

Cheltenham Young Men’s Christian Association

25 February 2025

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about staff conduct.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

3. The resident is a licensee of supported hostel accommodation. The landlord’s staff provide support to residents. The accommodation is staffed 24 hours a day.
4. The resident complained on 8 February 2023 that:
   1. she had asked a staff member to provide her with copies of the landlord’s policies, but she had not had a response
   2. she approached the staff office to speak to the same staff member about her enquiry 2 weeks later, however they were obstructive and declined to help her
   3. she asked the staff member for the manager’s details, but they told her that she could not have them, and the staff member then closed the office door in front of her to indicate that the conversation had ended
   4. the resident was upset by the staff member’s actions which she described as “hostile and provocative”
5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on the 17 May 2023 at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It said that:
   1. it had upheld her complaint
   2. it would take appropriate steps but could not disclose what these steps were because of data protection restrictions
6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 3 on 18 May 2023. She said that she was not satisfied with the response to her complaint.
7. The landlord responded the same day and said that it could not disclose what steps it would be taking to address the actions of the staff member due to confidentiality, but it had taken her complaint seriously.  It had passed her complaint to stage 3 of its complaints procedure.
8. On 22 May 2023, the resident received the landlord’s stage 3 complaint response. It said that:
   1. the conduct of its staff member fell short of the standards the landlord expected
   2. it apologised for this, and it would be addressing the matter with its staff member with immediate effect 
9. The resident was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint, and she referred it to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the staff

10. The Ombudsman’s role is not to investigate the resident’s allegation about the conduct of the landlord’s staff and to make a finding. This Service will not make any order or recommendation for a landlord to take disciplinary action against a member of its staff. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint were fair and proportionate considering all the circumstances of the case.
11. The landlord’s code of conduct says that employees must always behave appropriately and ensure that they maintain professional boundaries with residents and service users at all times. Employees should also ensure that their language is always professional.
12. In its stage 1 and 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the conduct of its staff member fell below the standards it expected. It apologised to the resident and gave assurances that it was taking her complaint seriously and further action would be taken. The landlord could not share the outcome of any investigation in terms of any disciplinary matters with the resident. This is because this would relate to employment matters which would be confidential and beyond the remit of this Service to investigate.
13. While the landlord was not able to disclose any action it had taken in relation to its employee, it could have identified its service delivery failures and outlined what steps would be taken going forward to improve service delivery in customer care. For example, it could have given assurances that it would remind its staff team of their customer care obligations or that it would be arranging further training. Instead, its response was vague and did not explain what actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s report. This led the resident to conclude that it had not investigated her complaint properly.
14. The incident was distressing for the resident. She said that she found the staff member’s actions to be “hostile and provocative”. Although the resident’s complaint was upheld by the landlord, it did not offer her adequate redress. For the reasons outlined above, the Ombudsman finds service failure and orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation for her distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaints handling

15. The landlord has a three-stage complaints process. It will provide a stage 1 response within 14 days by a person responsible for the service area of the complaint. A manager will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 14 days of the complaint being escalated. A head of service will respond to stage 3 complaints within 14 days of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to the final stage.
16. The landlord took the decision to bypass the first stage of the complaints process, as the complaint related to a member of staff. This was reasonable as it would have been inappropriate for the complaint to have been investigated by a co-worker of the member of staff under investigation. However, the response was issued on 17 May 2023, which was 84 days outside the published timescales in the landlord’s complaint policy. This was a significant delay for which the landlord has not provided an explanation.
17. Both the stage 2 response and the stage 3 response contained limited detail other than the complaint had been investigated and had been upheld. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022) 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”.
18. As highlighted above, we acknowledge that the landlord could not provide details about the actions taken to address this with the member of staff because of data protection restrictions. However, the resident was dissatisfied with what she described as a “non-response” which did not show that it understood the basis for the resident’s complaint, how the incident had affected her and what it would do to improve customer care going forward.
19. Complaints provide an opportunity to learn, to improve relationships and to identify and address service failures. The landlord’s complaints handling was lacking. Without a meaningful investigation or review, the landlord did not demonstrate the dispute resolution principles the Ombudsman would expect to see for putting things right and learning from outcomes.
20. Furthermore, the landlord’s 3 stage complaints process was not consistent with the current Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024, which states ‘that a process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman’. The landlord has since reviewed and updated its complaints policy, effective as of January 2025, which is now compliant with the Code.
21. The resident had also outlined what she wanted the landlord to do to resolve her complaint in her complaint form. She had asked it to provide her with a copy of its policies. The landlord did not address this in its complaint response which was unreasonable. It is not clear why it could not have provided the resident with its policies. Regardless of this, where a landlord cannot offer the resolution the resident wants, it would have been fair of the landlord to have explained in its complaint response why this was not possible.
22. The resident spent time and effort in following her complaint up with the landlord. The landlord did not reassure her that her complaint would be properly addressed and that it would seek to put things right for her. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its response or offer redress by way of an apology or compensation. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.
23. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident the amount of £100 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure that has adversely affected the resident.
24. As the Ombudsman has recently ordered the landlord to review its complaints handling procedures and policies (case 202308497), this report does not include any orders that would duplicate this.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the staff.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds maladministration with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

27. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the amount of £150 in compensation which includes:
       1. £50 for her distress and inconvenience because of the failings in its handling of her reports regarding the conduct of its staff.
       2. £100 for her distress, time and effort because of its complaint handling failings.