London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202307920)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307920

Tower Hamlets Homes

25 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its member of staff.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 1 August 1988. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the second floor. The resident has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident’s son resides with the resident and is her main carer. The resident’s son raised the complaint on behalf of his mother.
3. On 24 April 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He was dissatisfied with the conduct of the landlord’s staff member who was the housing officer. In summary he said the housing officer:
   1. Had behaved in a way that amounted to fraud and corruption. His behaviour was intimidating and menacing, and he had lied.
   2. Had sent email correspondence which was adverse.
   3. Recently visited unannounced and the resident was dissatisfied with the way in which he had behaved during the visit.
4. On 5 May 2023 the landlord sent a stage 1 response. It considered each point that the resident had raised and set out its findings. It concluded that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. It accepted that its staff member should not have provided advice and should have maintained a professional separation between his work and personal life. It could not however see that its staff member had acted in a way that amounted to fraud, corruption, malicious behaviour or breach of privacy.
5. On 11 May 2023 the resident requested a stage 2 complaint as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He considered the response was incorrect and not an accurate explanation of the incidents that took place.
6. On 22 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it was satisfied that it had provided a comprehensive response to all the issues raised. It considered its findings and conclusions were reasonable and appropriate. It therefore upheld its findings at stage 1.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service.

Assessment and findings

8. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
9. In the resident’s submissions to the Ombudsman, he stated that he wanted the member of staff to be held accountable for their actions and reprimanded accordingly. The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.
10. The landlord’s disciplinary policy states that every effort will be made by managers to resolve general concerns about a staff member’s conduct through informal discussion and without recourse to the formal disciplinary procedure, if appropriate. This will ultimately depend on the severity of the misconduct and whether it involves repeated offences. The landlord’s employee code of conduct states that it expects all employees to deal with residents in a courteous and civil manner.
11. The tenancy agreement states that to combat social housing fraud the landlord will carry out a programme of tenancy checks, tenancy audits and visits to investigate fraud including checking photographic ID and proof of residency such as utility bills.
12. The resident had raised a considerable amount of concerns about the landlord’s member of staff. The concerns were about various incidents which took place and a recent unannounced visit to the resident. The records show that the landlord had tried to contact the resident to clarify the facts of the complaint prior to issuing its response.  This was appropriate as some parts of the complaint raised were unclear. Furthermore, it showed that the landlord was listening to the resident and had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response showed that it had investigated matters. To ensure that all matters were addressed it referred to each point that the resident had raised within its response. Where the landlord did not have clarity about an issue raised it explained its position in relation to what it believed the complaint related to. Where issues were unclear the landlord also gave the resident an opportunity to provide further information should he wish to. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was trying to find a resolution.
14. The landlord considered its findings and acknowledged that its member of staff could have maintained a more professional separation between work and personal life to avoid any confusion. It advised that it would feed this back to the staff member.  The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord’s findings were shared with the member of staff which was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord also explained why it did not consider that the behaviour had amounted to fraud, corruption malicious behaviour or a breach of privacy. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response reiterated its findings in its stage 1. This was appropriate in the circumstances. Despite the landlord’s findings however, the relationship between the resident and its member of staff had clearly broken down.  The landlord could have therefore considered how it could improve the landlord tenant relationship moving forwards. A recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
16. In summary, this service is satisfied that the landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, it had acknowledged and investigated them, and clearly explained its position and acknowledged where there were some minor shortcomings. This service is, therefore, satisfied that the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns. On this basis there is no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its member of staff. 

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its member of staff.

Recommendations.

18. To try to resolve matters it is recommended that the landlord considers how it can improve the landlord tenant relationship moving forwards.