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

Homes Plus Limited (202309279)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309279

Homes Plus Limited

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of its staff member’s conduct regarding allegations made against him.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured non shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow and the tenancy started on 28 October 2021. The landlord has a physical vulnerability recorded on its information systems for the resident.
  2. On 18 April 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s staff member’s conduct during a call on 11 April 2023. This was in relation to a conversation between the landlord and resident in which it updated him on anti-social behaviour (ASB) cases made by him about his neighbour. The most recent allegations made by the resident about his neighbour concerned loud music, visitors, parking, the neighbour’s dog, standard of driving, and use of cannabis. It advised him that his neighbour had denied all allegations and had made a counter allegation that the resident’s reports of ASB were racially motivated. He was unhappy with this response, denied there was any racial discrimination, and said there was no evidence to support his reports were racially motivated. The landlord had proposed mediation between the neighbour and the resident, but he declined as a result of this conversation.
  3. Ultimately, the resident did not feel it was appropriate for the landlord’s staff member to have mentioned the allegations of any racially motivated report to him. He denied allegations of racism. He said mediation with the neighbour was never going to happen because of the staff member’s conduct.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 May 2023 and had not upheld the resident’s complaint. Before coming to its conclusion, it had discussed the complaint on 24 April 2023 with him and discussed the case with its staff member. It also reviewed the telephone call of 11 April 2022. It said its staff was obliged to discuss its investigation about reports of ASB that may have been racially motivated. The landlord apologised to the resident that the information made him upset. It also reoffered mediation. On the same day, as the resident disagreed with the landlord’s response, he asked to escalate the complaint. He said there was no proof of alleged racism and that it was all opinion based. He reiterated the comments should not have been made to him, without evidence.
  5. In the landlord’s final response of 14 June 2023, it said it had reviewed the stage 1 investigation and listened to the call of 11 April 2023. When it listened to the call, it had not found evidence that the content or tone of the conversation with the resident was inappropriate. It said its staff have a responsibility to act impartially and investigate all allegations received. It felt the most appropriate way of doing so, is to speak directly to those involved and get their version of events. It said its staff was polite and professional throughout. It acknowledged that the allegation was upsetting for the resident, but it had a responsibility to share the allegations with him. The landlord acknowledged it was clearly a distressing experience for the resident and said the offer of mediation remained open.
  6. On the same day of the landlord’s final response, the resident referred the matter about staff conduct to this Service. He maintained the staff member’s conduct was inappropriate and was responsible for not being able to mediate between him and his neighbour.

Assessment and findings

  1. In the landlord’s ASB policy, ASB can be reported by anybody who witnesses or experiences ASB. It aims to investigate concerns that achieve a resolution to those being affected quickly. Where it deems ASB arises from a dispute between parties, it can attempt to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution between the parties.
  2. From the information provided, the landlord engaged with the resident’s allegations and gave them reasonable consideration. The landlord acted properly by carrying out an investigation. In both complaint responses, both complaint handlers had separately listened to the phone call of 11 April 2023. The landlord had discussed the complaint with both the resident and the staff member, which was appropriate.
  3. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s staff conduct with him over the phone. Where a resident reports inappropriate behaviour from a member of the landlord’s staff, the landlord would be expected to take reasonable steps to verify the resident’s allegations. It is expected the landlord adequately investigate and respond to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available.
  4. The landlord also acknowledged the effect on the resident and apologised that its communication on 11 April 2023 made him upset. It told the resident what its staff member was trying to achieve on the phone call. It said it would use his feedback as a leaning opportunity and improve its services. This Service has not seen evidence to show that its response to the resident’s concerns were inappropriate. It was reasonable to follow its ASB policy and manage the case after receiving the neighbour’s counter allegation. It also communicated clearly with the resident throughout its investigation which was fair and made him aware that mediation was available if he were to change his mind. Therefore, it was appropriate it attempted a mutually acceptable resolution between the resident and his neighbour in line with its ASB policy.
  5. In this case, the landlord provided a reasonable and proportionate level of detail about its investigation into the complaint while attempting to maintain confidentiality. This was a fair and proportionate response. As no service failings have been identified, this Service has not found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of its staff member’s conduct regarding allegations made against him.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of its staff member’s conduct regarding allegations made against him.