Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Housing 21 (202016290)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016290

Housing 21

8 February 2022


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 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 handling of allegations made about the resident swearing at a member of staff and the issuing of an antisocial behaviour (ASB) warning letter to him.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident’s complaint concerns its decision to issue an ASB warning letter to him on 12 February 2021, following an incident with one of the landlord’s staff on 11 January 2021. The landlord had emailed the resident the next day to express its concerns over his behaviour during this incident, specifically that he had sworn at a member of its staff. The resident disputed this, and was unhappy that the landlord had issued a warning letter following the incident.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 29 April 2021. It apologised to the resident and acknowledged that it should have spoken to him regarding these concerns before issuing a warning letter to him. As a result of this failing, it offered him £30 compensation. In relation to the specific incident on 11 January 2021, it was unable to determine whether it had occurred due to the conflicting nature of the reports it had received from the resident and its staff member. It also explained that although the resident had believed he had been given notice to evict, this was not the case. The resident remained dissatisfied, and subsequently escalated his complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 9 June 2021, where it increased its offer of compensation to £50 as a result of its failure to follow the correct procedure. It additionally confirmed that it had removed the record of a warning letter being issued to the resident from his file. It also reiterated that it had not issued him with an eviction notice following this incident.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied following the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, and requested the Ombudsman investigate his complaint. He wanted the landlord to admit that it had made a mistake in issuing its ASB warning letter to him and to increase its offer of compensation.
  6. The landlord subsequently confirmed to the Ombudsman that it had sought to learn from this complaint by carrying out additional training on the ASB policy and process to its staff. Additionally, it had commissioned an ASB specialist consultant to undertake a review of its policies and procedures, and would be carrying out associated training for its staff following this review.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it is focused on protecting its staff by challenging, stopping or changing the offending behaviour with the least formality. It also acknowledges that some residents may be discourteous towards its staff, which should not be treated as ASB unless it is done repeatedly and routinely.
  2. The landlord’s “compensation: policy and guidance” document confirms that it will consider compensation where it had failed to provide a service which results in a loss to the resident.

Assessment  

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to its concerns over the resident’s behaviour was in line with its ASB policy and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. After receiving the member of staff’s report about the conduct of the resident, the landlord emailed the resident the following day to highlight its concerns. This was a reasonable action to take, as in accordance with its ASB policy, the landlord will challenge unacceptable behaviour towards its staff. However, it did not arrange a follow-up meeting to discuss these concerns with the resident; instead, it followed up this action by issuing an ASB warning letter to him. This was unfair on the resident, as its policy confirms that it should only treat reports about a resident’s behaviour as ASB if there are repeated and routine concerns in this regard. Therefore, a failing has been identified for issuing an ASB warning letter to the resident.
  3. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by removing the record of the ASB warning that had been issued to him, and offering £50 compensation for its failure to follow its procedure by issuing the ASB warning letter without discussing the matter with the resident first.
  5. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which suggests an award of between £50 to £250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. In this case the landlord’s failings would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident but did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint because the landlord acknowledged its failing in its complaint responses and rectified the issue within a timely manner by removing the ASB warning letter from its records. In addition, the ASB warning letter was not an eviction notice and therefore, the landlord had not taken any tenancy enforcement action against the resident.
  6. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from the complaint by carrying out additional training, and commissioning a consultant-led review of its policies and processes in respect to ASB. This was reasonable action for it to take, and demonstrates its desire to improve the service it provides to its residents.
  7. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that within the next four weeks the landlord pays the resident the £50 compensation it offered in its final stage complaint response, if this has not already been paid.