Cognatum Estates Ltd (202014828)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014828

Cognatum Estates Ltd

22 December 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 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:

a)     The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.

b)     The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder in a retirement housing development. The landlord provides management services to the estate.
3. The resident’s son is acting on behalf of his mother and for the purpose of this report will be referred to as the representative.
4. The purchaser’s information pack details:

a)     The rights and obligations of residents and landlord.

b)     The estate managers duties.

c)     The emergency alarm arrangements.

d)     Communal facilities.

5. A service charge is charged annually to cover the costs in managing the development.
6. There are communal facilities for the residents to use and this includes a laundry room, and the cost is part of the service change and therefore no extra cost for its use.
7. The risk assessment was updated in March 2020 for the estates in response to the Coronavirus pandemic, this included the use of the laundry facilities.

Summary of events

8. On 30 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident outlining its safety measures during the pandemic, including the use of the laundry room.
9. On 6 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the representative regarding arrangements for the use of the laundry room in response to the Coronavirus. It noted following conversations with the resident she was unhappy with the arrangements which included a rota system and a carer doing her laundry along with another residents. The landlord explained that the resident said “angrily” it wasn’t “fair” that she could no longer have two visits to the laundry each week. It highlighted concerns regarding the resident’s behaviour and detailed some specific incidents. It said that the laundry was a high risk zone and should be used with great care and caution. The landlord said that it did not think the resident would be able to carry out the necessary cleaning because of both “her age” and the “erratic attitude” she was displaying. It also raised concerns relating to the resident’s health and questioned what support she had in place.
10. On 12 April 2020 the representative responded, he stated he was surprised by the tone and content of the letter and did not accept what was being said about his mother. He reported that a staff member had berated and shouted at her when she questioned the arrangements. Furthermore, there had been other incidents where residents were ‘treated as school children’.
11. He stated that his mother had made her own arrangements for her laundry to be done and someone visited on a daily basis to check on her welfare.
12. The representative also stated that because of the lack of trust in management she would like to make alternative arrangements for the emergency phone (alarm) service.
13. The landlord responded on 14 April 2020 acknowledging the resident’s “extraordinary and intemperate” reply advising he could nominate a family member to respond to emergency calls but the landlord would have to notify the call centre accordingly.
14. The representative raised a formal complaint on 16 April 2020 to the managing director. He stated he was unhappy that his concerns relating to staff conduct were not being addressed. He requested the matters relating to his mother be investigated and advised there were witnesses to the incidents he previously described. He also stated that he had not been given any information as to how he could arrange for the change of contact for the emergency calls.
15. On 17 April 2020 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the email and advised it would look into the incidents raised.
16. The representative contacted the landlord on 24 July 2020 advising he had not had a response to his emails of 16 April or 22 June 2020.
17. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 August 2020 apologising for the delay and advised it had asked its external HR consultant to progress the matter for “neutrality”. It suggested taking a statement from the resident via teams or zoom.
18. On 14 August 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating his dissatisfaction at the length of time it was taking to investigate matters. He also raised concerns that it would be difficult for his mother to use teams or zoom and would therefore make arrangements for someone locally to assist. He stated he would await to hear what the HR consultant proposed. 
19. The same day the landlord responded to the email, noting its contents. 
20. In September 2020 there were internal communications outlining what action was to be taken to investigate the matter. This included:

a)     Assessing the Covid guidance issues to managers.

b)     Assessing the risk assessments.

c)     Taking a witnessed statement from the resident with her son in attendance or statement from her son with what his mother would like to be considered.

d)     Interviewing the managers to take their witness statements.

21. On 20 September 2020 the representative contacted the landlord chasing a response.
22. The landlord issued on 7 October 2020 its stage one response.  It apologised for the delay and outlined its response. It said that:

a)     The external investigation found no evidence to suggest the staff acted in an “abrupt and dictatorial” manner nor any third party witnessed such behaviour.

b)     It respected that this is how the resident must have felt and would like to resolve any concerns.

c)     It stated that it had implemented measures to ensure estate procedures and guidelines were adhered to.

d)     That any action taken by managers is following head office instructions

e)     Covid risk assessments were carried out and the laundry was identified as high risk but also a vital service.

f)       The risk assessment was based on the estates use, not an individual, and therefore the decision was not personal to the resident.

23. On 3 November 2020 the representative responded noting that the landlord had apologised for the delay but did not address why it took 25 weeks to do so. He said:

a)     He was concerned that the investigation was not carried out by someone independent despite his requests for this to be done.

b)     There was little respect for the resident’s views and disdain for any resident that challenged what is imposed.

c)     He again advised that his issues regarding response delays and staff behaviour towards his mother had not been addressed

d)     He stated that the suggestion of the use of zoom for the taking of a witness statement was “out of touch”.

e)     He requested specific details about the investigation.

24. On 13 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging arrangements had been made for a witness statement to be taken. It said that:

a)     The original draft report could not be considered complete as it was waiting on the resident’s statement.

b)     A copy of the outcome would be provided to the resident once her statement had been considered.

c)     It was not appropriate to provide the resident with copies of statements, however the investigation would take these into account and be addressed in the report – a copy of which would be provided to the resident.

25. The representative emailed the landlord on 30 November 2020 to advise his mother no longer wanted to provide as statement as the proposed telephone call was causing her anxiety. He also stated that in light of this it did not bring an end to the complaint.
26. On 15 December 2020 the resident forwarded a copy of his email dated 30 November 2020 to the landlord. He reiterated that his mother was very distressed by the situation and the length of time that landlord was taking in dealing with matters.
27. The representatives complaint was acknowledged by this service on 25 February 2021.
28. Following delays by this service, in January 2022 the landlord confirmed its final response was its stage one response sent to the representative in October 2020.
29. When the representative approached this service he said that he was unhappy with the treatment of his mother by the landlord and its failure to investigate or answer any of the issues. He wanted the complaint treated seriously.

Assessment and findings

30. The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen, it is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
31. This investigation will therefore assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to a given situation and decide whether its actions were fair and reasonable, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.
32. The landlord’s complaint procedure states at stage one, it will provide a written response within 10 working days. At stage two a written response will be provided within 20 working days.
33. Its procedure states that if a complaint is about senior members of staff, residents are encouraged to resolve the matter informally with the person concerned. However, if this is not possible the complaint should be sent to the customer service manager and investigated by an appropriate senior member of staff.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct

34. It is understandable that the new laundry arrangements would have caused upset and inconvenience for the resident. However the landlord acted appropriately by implementing such measures to limit its use to one person at a time during the pandemic.
35. It wrote to residents to advise them of social distancing measures in line with government guidance at the time.
36. The landlord acted reasonably by asking its external HR consultant to investigate the matter given the complaint was in relation to senior managers. This was in line with its complaints procedure and this services dispute resolution principles of being fair and following a fair process.
37. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what was verbally discussed when the resident raised her concerns regarding the laundry rota, instead it will comment on the communications that were sent to the resident in response.
38. The wording of the letters dated 6 April and 14 April 2020 was inappropriate given the sensitive nature of the matters being discussed. This period of time, at the start of lockdown would have been a distressing time for the resident and the landlord should have been more understanding in its tone. It was unnecessary to say the resident “angrily” said the laundry arrangements were not fair and due to her “erratic behaviour” she would not be able to carry out the necessary cleaning arrangements. Especially as it said in its stage one response that the arrangements were “based on the estates use, not an individual, and therefore the decision was not personal to the resident”.
39. Having said that, the landlord accepts that the format of its letters could have been better and will therefore review its internal procedure regarding handling sensitive matters.
40. To alleviate the residents’ concerns, more in depth detail should have been provided as to what action was taken to investigate the matter relating to staff behaviours.
41. There is no evidence to suggest a copy of the investigation report was provided to the resident. The response simply refers to ‘the evidence’ but does not go into detail as to what was relied upon when reaching a conclusion. Any investigation should be carried out as close to the event as possible to ensure the evidence is fresh in the minds of the witnesses. It took 6 months for the landlord to provide the representative with a response. In addition there is no evidence to suggest the landlord took witness statement from other residents, only its staff members. This was inappropriate given the representative’s concerns of neutrality when investigating the complaint. Providing him with more detail could have helped alleviate his concerns.
42. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
43. It is evident that the tone of the letters of 6 and 14 April 2020 caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. Furthermore the delay in carrying out an investigating and failure to demonstrate transparency would have been frustrating for the resident and caused her distress. The Financial compensation of £100 is appropriate for that impact on her.

Complaint handling

44. The representative complaint of 16 April 2020 should have been treated as a formal complaint and therefore responded to within 10 working days.
45. Although this correspondence was acknowledged in April 2020, it took a further 59 working days, nearly six months, to provide a response. This was unreasonable and in contrary to its complaints procedure and this service complaint handling code.
46. In between that time the resident chased the response a further two times in June and July 2020.
47. Furthermore, it was not until October 2020, some six months later, that the landlord provided details of what the resident needed to do in order to transfer the emergency service contact. 
48. The landlord apologised for the length of time it took to respond to the stage one complaint however it took no action to put things right. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code it should have provided the resident with an explanation and where possible inform the resident of the changes its made to prevent delays in response times and ensuring staff respond to complaint in accordance with best practice. This includes appropriate wording in any correspondence.
49. The landlord’s complaints policy states that where a complaint is made, a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days. The representative contacted the landlord several times to express concerns at the length of time it was taking to response to his complaint. Yet there were still significant delays by the landlord in providing a response to the issues he raised. This was inappropriate, contrary to good complaint handling practice and a service failure. The representative said numerous times following the response stage one response of October 2020 that he was unhappy. Therefore, his complaint should have been escalated to a stage two. This was not done as the landlord advised this service that the letter of 7 October 2020 was its final response. Further, it did not direct the resident to this service, although details are provided in its complaints procedure.
50. Financial compensation is appropriate here for the evident inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the failings outlined above. Compensation of £200 is appropriate

Determination (decision) 

51. In accordance with paragraph 55 there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.
52. In accordance with paragraph 55 there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

53. It was unfair to the resident the lack of detail provided when investigating the complaint and the wording of the landlord’s communication was inappropriate.
54. The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to the resident’s complaint which was avoidable and frustrating for the resident.

Orders

55. The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:

a)     Pay the resident £300 made up of:

1. £100 for any distress caused by the tone of its communication to the resident.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenient to the resident in pursuing the complaint and for issuing the stage one response outside of the timescale of the scheme.

Recommendations

56. The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that they respond to complaints in accordance with best practice.