Crawley Borough Council (202309971)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309971

Crawley Borough Council

29 October 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a breach of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor’s staff.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s claims of disability discrimination.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. The housing records confirm the resident has a number of physical and mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, post traumatic distress disorder (PTSD), emotional unstable personality disorder (EUPD), chronic bronchitis and incontinence. Her husband has PTSD, osteoarthritis and incontinence.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2023 and said the operatives were taking too long to carry out work to the shower and this was affecting their mental health. The contractor told the landlord it needed more time to ensure the shower was working before it left. The resident refused this request. They said they needed to cook for medical reasons and asked the contractor to return on the following day.
The resident told the landlord on 5 April 2023 that the operatives went into the bedroom without their permission.
The resident made a complaint on 13 April 2023. She said the operatives were rude and stole aftershave and perfume from her home and made her husband’s PTSD worse by insisting the front door was not locked. This led to him having suicidal thoughts. The resident told the landlord on 24 April 2024 that it should not have told the contractor they were disabled.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 May 2023 and said:
1. The work carried out in the resident’s home was invasive and it was sorry for any inconvenience and stress that was caused.
2. The contractor would discuss the concerns raised by the resident with the operatives concerned.
3. The operatives said they did not take any of the resident’s possessions and she should contact the police if she believed items had been stolen.
4. The operatives removed the towels from the airing cupboard and placed them in the bedroom to ensure they were not damaged.
5. The resident’s decision to lock the door was seen as entrapment by the operatives.
6. It would ask the contractor to ensure the operatives did not work in the resident’s home again, although this may impact on service delivery times for future repair appointments.
The resident asked for their complaint to be escalated on the same day and said:
1. The door was locked for safety reasons because of her husband’s PTSD and her own disabilities. The key was always left in the door.
2. The operatives frequently went outside whilst completing the work and were not entrapped as suggested by the landlord. She wanted the allegation withdrawing.
3. The operatives moved items from the airing cupboard and placed them in the bedroom without seeking permission.
4. The landlord shared information about the residents’ disabilities with the operatives without their consent. This led to the operatives stealing things from their home and making inappropriate remarks about their disabilities, which were discriminatory and triggered her husband’s PTSD.
The resident told the landlord on 31 May 2023 that the operatives who visited their home to complete the electrical work covered the CCTV doorbell so they could not be recognised. They said they did not want the contractor in their home again. The resident told the landlord on 11 June 2023 that 3 electrical chargers had been stolen and they only wanted female operatives to complete repairs in their home going forward.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 20 June 2023 and said:
1. It had reviewed the statements written by the operatives and no reference was made to false imprisonment. Incorrect language had, however, been used in the stage 1 complaint response to describe the situation and it was sorry for any alarm or distress that had been caused.
2. It had discussed the resident’s concerns about the operatives complaining whilst carrying out the work with several members of staff and was unable to draw any conclusions. The operatives had the resident’s best interest at heart and it was sorry if they came across in any other way.
3. Based on the police’s decision to take no further action and in the absence of any firm evidence, it had concluded the operatives did not steal the resident’s possessions. No compensation would be offered to replace the items.
4. The operatives moved the resident’s towels but did not get the resident’s permission to do so. A flag had been put on the resident’s notes advising staff to seek permission before moving items or entering the resident’s bedrooms in the future.
5. The landlord told the contractor the work needed to be done quickly and the operatives thought they were being helpful by moving the towels. They also offered to stay late to complete the work but were asked to return the following day by the resident. The operatives may have become frustrated whilst carrying out the work and this could have affected their personal demeanour.
6. It had not breached GDPR. The information shared with its contractor had been done in accordance with its privacy statement and to ensure it understood the importance of completing the work to the shower on that day.
7. It was satisfied that 1 of the operatives covered the CCTV doorbell. The matter had been addressed by the contractor and further training would be provided on conduct and mental health awareness.
8. It could find no evidence of disability discrimination when dealing with the resident’s repair or complaint. It would, however, have expected the operatives to have been more sympathetic given the resident’s husband had shared information on the reasons why the door was locked.
9. A female operative would carry out repairs in the resident’s home in the future and it would ensure the internal doors were left open so the work could be observed, subject to any health and safety requirements. The housing officer would also attend repair appointments whilst trust was rebuilt between the resident and the contractor.
10. It would offer the resident £50 compensation for any distress that was caused. It also said it would fit and paint the internal doors bought by the resident and carryout a number of other jobs for her. The work would be completed on a Saturday so that a councillor could attend, as requested by the resident.

Post complaint events.

The landlord told this Service that it had not fitted or painted the internal doors purchased by the resident. It said this was because the resident bought the wrong sized doors and due to staff sickness. Some of the other jobs it agreed to complete were also outstanding.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.’’ In this case, the resident said the landlord shared details about their disabilities with the contractor without asking permission. The resident is advised to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) should they wish to pursue their complaint about a breach in GDPR.

Assessment and findings

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

This Service does not dispute the resident’s concerns about the behaviour and actions of the contractor’s staff, which they said they found distressing. It is not the role of this Service to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen. We have, however, investigated whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns and whether it acted reasonably and in line with good practice and any relevant policies.
The resident told the landlord on 5 April 2023 that the contractor’s operatives went into the bedroom without seeking permission. They told the landlord on 13 April 2023 that the operatives were rude and alleged they had stolen their possessions.
The landlord asked the contractor to speak to its operatives but was over reliant on the contractor to investigate its own actions. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have interviewed the resident and liaised with the contractor to gain an understanding of the operatives’ views about the situation. That the landlord did not carry out a meaningful investigation was a failure and meant the resident was not clear on what action would be taken. It also led the resident to conclude that the landlord was not taking their concerns seriously.
The landlord did not advise the resident to contact the police regarding the alleged theft. It would have been reasonable for it to have done this given the police are best placed to deal with criminal matters including allegations of theft. Neither did it make a safeguarding referral. This would have been appropriate given the resident said the situation caused her husband to have suicidal thoughts. The landlord’s safeguarding policy says staff should pass such information on to one of its designated safeguarding officers without delay. This was a further failure.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 24 April 2023 in which they asked for an update on the allegation of theft. This was a missed opportunity to provide clarity and reassure the resident that it was taking their concerns seriously.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer an apology in its stage 1 complaint response on 4 May 2023 for any distress that had been caused. It said it did not tolerate rude behaviour and it would ask the contractor to ensure the 2 operatives did not go back to the resident’s home. This demonstrated it wanted to rebuild trust and put things right for the resident. The landlord noted, however, that this could affect future repair appointment times. These comments were not appropriate given the landlord’s obligations to complete repairs in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This was a failure. The comments also caused the resident distress and led them to conclude that they were being punished for making a complaint.
While the landlord said there was no evidence to substantiate the resident’s allegation of theft, it is unclear from the housing records on what basis this finding was made given no witness statements had been taken and the landlord had not contacted the police to confirm if it was taking any action at this point. This was a failure.
It was reasonable for the landlord to note that a flag had been placed on the resident’s file stating that their possessions should not be moved without gaining permission first. It also clarified its position regarding the comments that had been made about repair response times and said it was arranging customer care training for its staff. This demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously and learnt from the complaint.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for statements to be taken from the operatives, it did not do this until 22 May 2023; some 7 weeks after the allegations were made. It is unclear from the housing records why only 1 operative provided a statement or whether the resident was provided with an update.
Whilst it is acknowledged the landlord could only provide limited feedback on the outcome of its investigation into the operatives’ behaviour towards the resident, it would have been appropriate for it to have confirmed its investigation was ongoing. From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord did this. This left the resident feeling uncertain about whether an investigation was being carried out and whether their concerns were being taken seriously.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to meet the resident and her councillor on 31 May 2023, no record of the meeting was shared with this Service. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their obligations and accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken.
The resident told the landlord on the same day that an operative had covered their CCTV doorbell so they could not be recognised. These claims were investigated by the landlord and it was determined that the operative deliberately covered the doorbell camera with his identification badge.
It was appropriate for the landlord to share its findings with the contractor on 6 June 2023 and ask it to confirm how it would address its concerns with its staff. It provided the resident with an update on 9 June 2023. The landlord also agreed to fit and paint a number of internal doors purchased by the resident and said a female operative would attend to any repairs in the future. This demonstrated the landlord was resolution focused and wanted to put things right for the resident.
The resident told the landlord on 11 June 2023 that they were happy for the contractor to carry out work in their home if certain conditions were met. These included arranging for a female operative to complete any repairs and ensuring they were observed and did not touch their possessions. The resident also asked for the allegation of entrapment to be dropped. In addition, they asked the landlord to fit a new kitchen, make changes to the wet room and instal a light in the upstairs cupboard. They said this was in addition to the list of jobs that the landlord had previously agreed to complete, although no record of these were provided by the landlord. This demonstrates poor record keeping.
It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident’s councillor on 11 June 2023 that a member of its team would supervise the work of the contractor whilst trust was rebuilt. It told the resident on 13 June 2023 that it was considering their request to complete a number of jobs. It also noted the resident’s request to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom would need to be signed off by an occupational therapist (OT) and it would provide an update in due course. This ensured it managed the resident’s expectations.
It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the Police on 14 June 2023 regarding the alleged theft, who confirmed no further action would be taken. This demonstrated the landlord took the allegations seriously.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
In this case, the landlord offered an apology in its final complaint response on 20 June 2023 for any distress that was caused. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a member of the team to supervise the work carried out by its contractor whilst trust was rebuilt and agree to use a female operative. In addition, the landlord confirmed the issues regarding staff conduct had been dealt with by the contractor and training would be provided to all of its operatives. This included mental health awareness training. The offer of £50 compensation and agreement to complete a number of jobs for the resident was fair and proportionate in the circumstances.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it would not compensate the resident for the stolen goods given there was no evidence of theft.
The landlord confirmed it would not upgrade the kitchen and bathroom or install a light in the upstairs cupboard. It said this was because it would be a disproportionate response to the complaint. This ensured it managed the resident’s expectations and was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). This says landlords should manage residents’ expectations from the outset, being clear where a desired outcome is unreasonable or unrealistic. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the kitchen to be inspected to ensure it met required standards.
In summary, the landlord initially failed to investigate the resident’s concerns. This led to the resident concluding that their concerns were not taken seriously and they were being punished for making a complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to clarify its position and offer an apology in its final complaint response. It also arranged for the other concerns raised by the resident to be investigated and took a number of steps to put things right and prevent a reoccurrence. The landlord’s offer to complete a number of jobs for the resident and award £50 compensation was fair and proportionate in the circumstances. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor’s staff.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s claims of disability discrimination.

The Ombudsman will not investigate if discrimination has taken place as this would be quicker and fairer for a court to consider and make a legally binding decision. In this case, however, we are able to investigate whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of discrimination.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 4 April 2023 that the operatives were taking too long to complete the work in their home and the situation was affecting their mental health. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident on the same day and to note it needed more time to ensure the shower was working before the end of the day given their medical needs. This demonstrated the landlord was sensitive to the resident’s needs and was willing to make reasonable adjustments. It was agreed the operatives would stop working and return the following day to complete the work.
The resident told the landlord on 4 May 2023 that they had been subject to disability discrimination. They said the operatives made comments about their disabilities and asked inappropriate questions about their mental health. The resident also said the operatives were sarcastic and noted how ‘‘slow’’ she was. In addition, they said they never trapped the operatives in their home and the door was locked because of her husband’s paranoia.
While the landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that the operatives would not visit the resident’s home again, there is no evidence it investigated the resident’s concerns or gave due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. This was a failure on the landlord’s part. It is vital that investigations into allegations of discrimination are completed and fully documented to ensure full transparency.
The landlord’s claim that the resident trapped the operatives in her home was insensitive and not based on evidence. This led to the resident feeling blamed. The comments also indicate a lack of understanding on the landlord’s part towards the resident’s mental health conditions and caused significant distress. This was a failure and led to a further deterioration in its relationship with the resident.
The resident responded on the same day and said the door key was always left in the door given her husband suffered from paranoia and needed a means of escape. She told the landlord on 5 May 2023 that the operatives triggered her husband’s PTSD by insisting the door was left unlocked and used their ‘illnesses against them.’’
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm on 5 May 2023 that the operatives did not accuse the resident of entrapment or imply she was a criminal. This provided clarity and demonstrated it took learning from the complaint. While it offered an apology, it did not acknowledge that the claim of entrapment was incorrectly made or acknowledge the comments caused the resident significant distress. This was a further failure.
While the landlord arranged for a statement to be taken from the operative, it did not do this until 22 May 2023. There is no evidence the allegation of disability discrimination was raised with them. This was a failure and meant the landlord did not carry out a thorough investigation. The housing records confirm the operative made no reference to feeling trapped in the resident’s home, but did note the door was locked and they had to repeatedly ask for the key.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology in its final complaint response on 20 June 2023 for any distress that was caused and confirm there was no accusation of false imprisonment. It also said the operatives could have been more sympathetic towards the resident’s given their concerns about locking the door.
While the landlord said it could find no evidence of disability discrimination, it did not investigate the resident’s claim that the operatives made inappropriate comments about their disabilities. This was a failure and calls into question how thoroughly the landlord considered the resident’s allegations before satisfying itself there was no case to answer.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that the operatives should not have asked the resident questions about their medical conditions and to note it had arranged mental health awareness training for staff. This demonstrated it learnt from the complaint and wanted to put things right for the resident. It did not, however, offer the resident compensation for the distress caused.
In summary, the landlord failed to carry out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s allegations of disability discrimination. It did not seek to understand their needs and did not investigate her claim that the operatives made inappropriate comments about her disabilities. The landlord’s claim of entrapment was also insensitive and demonstrated a lack of understanding of her husband’s circumstances. While the landlord later acknowledged the incorrect wording was used and apologised for this, the comments nonetheless damaged its relationship with the resident.
It is evident the situation caused the resident distress. She told the landlord she felt blamed and was being punished for making a complaint. She also told the landlord the situation affected her mental health and led to her husband having suicidal thoughts. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s claims of disability discrimination, for which it is ordered to pay £300 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 13 April 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, which says it will acknowledge complaints within 4 working days. This was a failure and led to the resident contacting the landlord on a number of occasions and asking for an update.
There is no evidence the landlord sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes they were seeking before issuing its stage 1 complaint response. This was not in accordance with the Code.
The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 4 May 2023. This was outside the 10-working day target set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. This was a further failure.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer an apology for any stress that was caused and to note that the operatives would not visit her home again. This demonstrated it wanted to rebuild the resident’s trust and put things right for her.
The resident asked for their complaint to be escalated on the same day. They said they were being blamed by the landlord and it implied they were criminals by suggesting they had entrapped the operatives. The resident also noted the landlord was going to delay repair appointments in the future because of the operatives’ actions. They asked the landlord to withdraw the allegation of entrapment and said they were subject to disability discrimination.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 May 2023. This was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord met the resident on 31 May 2023 and confirmed the nature of the complaint on 5 June 2023. It also noted it needed more time to complete its investigation and confirmed it would respond by 20 June 2023. This was in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 20 June 2023.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and there were delays in issuing its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did, however, later arrange to meet the resident to ensure it understood their complaint and the outcomes they were seeking. While the landlord took learning from the complaint, it did not offer specific redress for the complaint handling failures. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord for which it is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about a breach in GDPR is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor’s staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s claims of disability discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
£300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of their claims of disability discrimination
£50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of their complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord contacts the resident and agrees a plan of action to complete the jobs it previously said it would do, if not already done so.
Pay the resident the £50 compensation already offered, if not already paid.