Settle Group (202215101)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215101

Settle Group

14 March 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports of staff conduct/racial discrimination;
2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident had an excluded licence agreement with the landlord, who is a registered provider of social housing. The agreement was for a one-bedroom ground floor property with self-contained facilities. The local authority accepted a homeless duty for the resident and placed her into temporary accommodation owned by the landlord. The agreement began on 9 July 2021 and ended on 16 April 2023.
The licence agreement states that “this agreement does not confer exclusive possession upon the occupier nor does it create the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.”
Under paragraph 25(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers there to be a landlord/tenant relationship when the person referring a complaint to this Service has: “a lease, tenancy, licence to occupy, service agreement, or other arrangement to occupy premises owned or managed by a member. If the complaint is made by an ex-occupier, they must have had a legal relationship with the member at the time that the matter of complaint arose.” The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that there was a landlord/tenant relationship between the parties. For the purposes of this report, the parties have been referred to as the ‘landlord’ and the ‘resident.’
The landlord stated it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities although further details have not been shared with this Service. It attended meetings with partner agencies to consider the level of support offered to the resident.
The landlord’s complaints procedure dated October 2020 (to be reviewed October 2022) states that:
1. If it was unable to resolve the resident’s complaint immediately, it would “make sure we understand the issues and may ask for more details. This could include dates, times, the names of anyone involved (if known) and anything else you’d like us to consider when we investigate your complaint. We’ll also ask what you’d like the outcome to be if this isn’t already clear to us.”
2. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 2 working days. It aims to investigate and respond to all complaints within 10 working days. It will advise of delays and inform the resident when they can expect a full response.
3. Stage 2 complaints should be acknowledged within 2 working days. It aims to investigate and respond within 15 working days. It will advise of any delays and inform the resident when they can expect a full response.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can make discretionary payments – these are payments that it can “choose to make due to the negative impact a service failure has had on a customer.” The procedure suggests the following awards:
1. Low Impact – £0 – £50.
2. Medium Impact – £50 – £250.
3. High Impact – £250 – £500.

Scope of investigation

In her complaint to the landlord and this Service, the resident stated that her mental health was affected by the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman has not sought to determine whether this was the case, as this is a matter which is best decided by a court following a claim of injury or damages. However, this investigation has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health, in line with the Ombudsman’s approach, which is set out at the beginning of this report.
In her complaint, the resident expressed that she felt she had been subject to discrimination and racial abuse by the landlord’s member of staff. The Ombudsman is unable to make a finding of discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010 or otherwise, since this is a legal matter which would need to be determined by a court. Instead, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
The purpose of this investigation is to instead determine if the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports, in line with its policies, and what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This Service has considered any general distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Summary of events

The landlord recorded having received multiple complaints about the resident from her neighbours throughout May and July 2022, and on some occasions police involvement had been required. The complaints included reports of noise nuisance and threats of violence towards another resident. The landlord spoke with the resident regarding the complaints it had received and reminded her of the terms of her licence agreement. It also offered to help her with further support “if required.” Due to the continued complaints during this time the landlord also issued the resident with a warning for a breach of her licence, due to her behaviour.
The landlord recorded that during a conversation with the resident on 8 July 2022 about the complaints that it had received, the resident said twice “oh that’s right, blame the black woman.” The landlord’s records state that its response to the resident had been that “this was not the case.”
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 8 July 2022, following the conversation referenced in paragraph 12 of this report. The landlord recorded that the resident’s complaint said:
1. she was dissatisfied with the way a member of its staff was treating her in relation to the complaints that had been made against her;
2. its member of staff had been racist towards her and they were abusing their power;
3. she wanted no further contact with its member of staff;
4. it needed to address racism within its organisation.
On 26 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said that it would fully investigate the concerns the resident had raised and it would provide its response within 10 working days. However, it provided its stage 1 complaint response on the same day. Its response said:
1. Its member of staff was there to provide the resident with “support and investigate complaints when they arise from other customers.” Their role was to work with the resident and others to find a solution.
2. It had received complaints regarding the resident playing music in the early hours, and also about threatening behaviour towards neighbours. It noted that the resident denied the allegations that had been made.
3. The resident had “some productive discussions” with its member of staff over the last couple of weeks to resolve the issue. Its staff member had also reached out to the resident’s support network, with her permission, to attain additional support for her.
4. It had reviewed its management of the noise and behaviour complaints and it had found that the approach taken had been “balanced and proportionate” and had been in line with its processes.
5. Its member of staff had worked with the resident to try to find a resolution to the complaints and they had been “very focused” on the resident’s well-being. It had also tried to find an alternative outcome to enable the resident to move into independent accommodation.
6. It hoped the resident would continue to work with its member of staff and her support network over the coming weeks. If no other complaints about the resident were received, then it would close the allegations against her.
On 2 August 2022, the resident called the landlord to discuss its stage 1 complaint response. She said that she was unhappy that it had not looked at her evidence before providing its response. The landlord advised that it felt that its staff member’s handling of the reports made against her had been fair and reasonable. The resident disagreed. She said she felt that the landlord was “slandering her” and “creating a false narrative.” The resident said that she wanted to be left alone and not have to talk to the member of staff going forward. She also asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It has not been clear from the evidence provided to this Service if this was intended to be its stage 2 complaint response. It was also not clear if it had resolved the resident’s complaint to her satisfaction, resulting in her no longer wishing to pursue her complaint. Its communication said:
1. Further to its call with the resident the previous week, a reasonable solution to the resident’s complaint had been found. An agreement had been made with the resident to limit the contact between its member of staff and her. It agreed that its member of staff would communicate via email only.
2. Should the resident wish to contact the landlord, she should do so via email. It provided a direct email address for her to use. It also provided a telephone number for her to use when reporting an emergency.
3. It would be unable to allocate the resident a new member of staff to work due to the limitations of the number of staff in its team.
On 9 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident about reports of antisocial behaviour made against her by her neighbours. It advised that it would be visiting the resident on 16 September 2022 to discuss the recent reports. It also said that the resident’s complaints about a member of its staff “have been investigated previously and were unable to be substantiated.”
On 13 September 2022, the resident spoke with the landlord on at least 3 occasions. The landlord’s records state that the resident said:
1. She was unhappy with the complaint outcome and feels she is being ‘gaslighted’ by staff.
2. She has been subjected to ongoing racial abuse from staff. The landlord asked the resident to provide further details of this and recorded that she said:
  1. She has been repeatedly targeted because she is black and only white people matter.
  2. There had been internal investigations carried out by the landlord but these had not been carried out properly.
  3. She wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged that it escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on the same day. It advised it would provide its response within 20 working days, although the landlord’s complaints procedure stated that its stage 2 response timescales was 15 working days.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord cancelled the arranged appointment for the next day. It told the resident that as she had escalated her complaint to stage 2, its customer relations team would be in contact with her.
On 19 September 2022, the landlord’s internal notes recorded that it had spoken to its member of staff about the allegations that had been made against them. It also recorded that:
1. Its systems had been used to make records of interactions with the resident.
2. While it had tried to work with the resident to resolve the antisocial behaviour situation, it had not been able to engage with her.
3. There had been no third-party witnesses to support the allegations of racism made by the resident.
4. The resident had not provided any details of incidents having taken place.
5. It had been unable to find anything that would support the resident’s allegations.
The landlord called the resident on 27 September 2022 to clarify her reasons for her complaint. It noted that its understanding of the complaint was that its staff member had acted in a “racist manner” and “abused their power,” although it did not record having requested or gained any specific details from the resident that included times and dates of when the alleged instances happened. It also recorded that the resident did not want to have any further contact with the member of staff.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 October 2022. It said:
1. It was sorry to learn the resident was “experiencing issues” with a member of its staff, and it noted that the resident felt that no action had been taken to address the behaviour she had reported.
2. It had reviewed its records and had seen that the resident raised reports of “alleged racist behaviour.” It had investigated the allegations and based on the information it held it found no evidence of this having been true.
3. It felt that the correct procedures had been followed when it had responded to the noise and behaviour complaints it had received about the resident. It also felt that it had done this in a balanced and proportionate way.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 12 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Staff conduct

The resident expressed that she felt she had been subject to discrimination and racial abuse by the landlord’s member of staff. The Ombudsman is unable to make a finding of discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010 or otherwise, since this is a legal matter which would need to be determined by a court. Instead, this investigation will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and the reasonableness of its actions.
No evidence was provided to this Service to show the landlord contacted the resident to clarify her specific allegations, prior to it providing its stage 1 response. While it said that it had reviewed its handling of the antisocial behaviour case against the resident and felt its management had been appropriate, it did not address the resident’s complaint about her allegations of racism. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have contacted the resident to gain further details about the alleged incidences of racism, asking for information such as who was involved and when, and where any alleged incidences occurred. This would ensure a more thorough and balanced investigation was carried out, giving opportunity to both parties to provide evidence directly. There has been no evidence to show that the resident was given this opportunity as part of the landlord’s investigation.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (The Code) states that “a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.” The landlord has been unable to evidence its compliance with this aspect of The Code, as shown in paragraph 26 of this report. By the landlord concluding its investigation without the resident’s further input, the resident was caused unnecessary distress and upset. The landlord showed a lack of empathy to the resident’s feelings around how she felt she had been treated. There is no evidence to show the landlord took the time to engage with the resident directly as part of its investigation. This impacted on the landlord and resident relationship, it was weakened and there was a loss of trust. The landlord’s complaint investigation and response to the resident at its first stage was inadequate.
The landlord contacted the resident following her initial request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. It followed up the conversation with an email to the resident. In the email it said that as a resolution it had been mutually agreed to limit the communications between its staff member and the resident, to email only. It provided the resident with a direct email address for her to send her communications to and a telephone number for her use to report any emergencies. This showed that the landlord had considered the resident’s request to not have dealings with its member of staff. While it could not prevent all interactions due to the small team, it looked to find an alternative solution. This was reasonable action taken by the landlord.
There has been no evidence seen by this Service of the full details of the conversation between the landlord and the resident referenced in paragraph 28 of this report. The purpose of the landlord’s email and telephone conversation with the resident was not clear in its relation to its complaints process. Good record keeping is vital for a landlord to be able to evidence the action it has taken and why. Failure to keep adequate records, impacts on the landlord’s ability to respond effectively and ensure there is a reliable record of all interactions with residents.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.” The landlord failed to record full details of its referenced conversation with the resident in its email of 9 August 2022. By not having recorded the details of its conversation with the resident, it has not been able to evidence what was discussed or that the resident had been satisfied that her complaint had been resolved at that stage.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said that there had been no evidence of “alleged racial behaviour” from the information it held. It said that it had followed the correct procedures in its handling of the complaints about the resident, and that it had done so in a balanced and proportionate way. The landlord was not clear in what information it held or had reviewed as part of its investigation. Its internal notes stated that there had been no third-party witnesses to support the allegations, although, it was not evident of how the landlord had identified this for it to have come to its conclusion. Throughout the complaints process it has been unable to clearly demonstrate that it carried out a thorough and impartial investigation into the resident’s complaint.
In summary, while it was clear that the landlord had been in regular contact with the resident, it failed to evidence that it sought to gain further details from her that may have supported her complaint. It was unable to evidence that it had carried out thorough and impartial investigations at either stage of its complaints process. It did not show empathy to the resident for how she felt or show that it had considered the impact of the complaint had, had on her. As a result, this Service has found maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the complaint relating to staff conduct. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £450 compensation for its handling of the reports of staff conduct.

Complaint

The landlord’s complaints procedure states that if it is unable to resolve a complaint immediately, it would make sure it understood the resident’s complaint and it may ask for more details including dates, times and anyone that may have been involved. It will acknowledge the resident’s complaint and its escalation within 2 working days. It will provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 15 working days.
Following the resident having made her complaint, it took the landlord 12 working days to provide its acknowledgement, despite it committing to providing an acknowledgment within 2 working days in its complaints procedure. While there was delay in it providing its acknowledgment, this did not impact on it providing its stage 1 complaint response within its target timescales. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged the delay in confirming its receipt of the complaint. However, the impact of this acknowledgement delay to the resident was minimal.
It took the landlord 29 working days to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, following her initial request for it to do so. It was not compliant with its complaints procedure in acknowledging the escalation request within 2 working days. During this time the landlord was in regular contact with the resident, and in one communication on 9 August 2022, it referenced having agreed a resolution by way of communications only being made via email. While its actions looked to provide a resolution for the resident in terms of interactions with its staff member, it was not clear in addressing the resident’s complaint about allegations of racial abuse or discrimination. Its response caused confusion in relation to it following its complaints procedure and may have added to the delay in it ultimately providing the resident with its formal stage 2 response. Its actions caused further frustration and distress to the resident, evident by her continuing to ask that her complaint be escalated to stage 2.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response 20 working days after it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. Its complaints procedure states that it would provide its stage 2 complaint response within 15 working days. As stated previously, the landlord’s handling of the complaint escalation was not compliant with its complaints procedure. It failed to apologise for its delays in it providing its stage 2 response or provide its reasons for the delays having occurred. It did not consider an offer of financial redress in line with its compensation policy for its failings.
In summary, the landlord failed to comply with its own complaints procedure on several occasions. It did not record, acknowledged, or escalate the resident’s complaint within its policy timescales. While this did not cause a delay in it providing its stage 1 complaint response, it did cause delay in it providing its stage 2 complaint response. It did not offer an apology or financial redress for its failings in its complaint handling or acknowledge the distress and frustration it had caused to the resident. As a result this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the staff conduct/racial discrimination complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to evidence a thorough investigation had been carried out at both stages of its complaints process.
The landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy and procedure.
The landlord failed to offer appropriate redress to the resident.

Orders

The landlord must comply with the orders below and provide evidence to this Service of its compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident directly a total of £650 compensation for:
1. £300 failure to carry out a fair and thorough investigation.
2. £250 distress and inconvenience.
3. £100 delays in complaint handling.
The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for its failings identified in this report.
The landlord must carry out a review of its current complaints policy and procedure to ensure consistency and in preparation for the latest version of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider a review of its complaint training for its front-line staff. This should include it highlighting that complaint investigations must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.