Warwick District Council (202226965)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226965

Warwick District Council

25 July 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 the resident’s reported concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. record keeping
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has lived in her 2-bedroom flat since February 2018. The landlord’s records show that the resident had mental health concerns, such as anxiety.
On 3 October 2022 the resident and her income officer (Officer A) discussed the resident’s rent account. That day and the following day, the resident raised her concerns and made a complaint about the officer’s conduct on the call.
The resident said:
1. she had a “very upsetting” call from Officer A and that it was “disgusting” [ how he had] treated her. She stated that Officer A had spoken to her in a manner that had upset her, which had happened on many occasions.
2. Officer A did not listen to her and caused her mental health to “worsen.” She hoped that the landlord had recorded the call as she wanted to take the matter further.
On 22 November 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint. She said she “hoped” the landlord was taking her complaint “seriously.”
On 23 November 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss her complaint. It noted that the resident stated that on 4 separate occasions Officer A had been “demeaning” to her on the phone. The resident stated that Officer A’s behaviour included:
1. shouting and threatening to take her to court over her rent arrears.
2. not allowing her to speak.
3. on occasions when she was unwell or unable to speak, Officer A said that she was making “excuses”.
On 29 November 2022 the landlord completed its investigation of the complaint. The report said:
1. it had reviewed the resident’s case file and interactions with Officer A over the previous 12 months. This included:
  1. telephone calls between the resident and Officer A.
  2. written correspondence from Officer A to the resident.
  3. interactions between Officer A and his colleagues.
  4. an interview with Officer A.
2. its contact with the resident had been in line with the law and with its procedure. It could not be determined that any action had been taken to deliberately upset the resident or that referring to court action was a deliberate threat made by Officer A. Nor could it be determined that the actions taken were a form of harassment.
3. it could not see that a supportive approach was always evident, and that the conversations between Officer A and the resident had solely been around the need to take the resident to court if the arrears were not addressed. Therefore, it partially upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised to the resident.
It is unclear when the landlord issued its complaint report and response. However, on 15 December 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because it was not “good enough”. She was unable to sleep and the matter made her “very anxious.”
On 20 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint report and response. It said:
1. it agreed with the stage 1 complaint report, but added that it could have been “kinder and more understanding in some of the conversations.”
2. the resident’s account notes stated that she was ‘highly vulnerable and had been receiving long-term treatment for anxiety.’ It recommended that this information was displayed more prominently on her account to assist officers when contacting the resident.
3. its proposed learning points for the service were:
  1. that members of the Income Management Team undertake additional customer and negotiation skill training.
  2. the resident’s rent account is clearly marked up to make it clear to officers that she is extremely vulnerable.
4. It:
  1. apologised to the resident for the “unacceptable” experience/behaviour that the resident had with one of its staff members. It said that it should treat people fairly and with respect.
  2. had requested remedial actions to be implemented.
  3. acknowledged that the resident had declined the £134.65 offer of compensation for the distress that she experienced and reoffered the award.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaint policy said that it operated a 2-stage complaint process. It said:
1. it acknowledged resident’s complaints within 5 working days, which included confirmation date or timeframe by which the resident could expect its response.
2. it responded to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
3. complaints about members of staff were logged as a complaint to ensure that there is a central record. If a complaint was received about a member of staff, it would investigate accordingly.
4. decisions regarding disciplinary matters could not be discussed with the complainant.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident’s comments about the conversations and interactions that she had with Officer A are not disputed. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was staff misconduct. Instead, it is our role to review the evidence that is available and determine whether the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint appropriately, fairly, and reasonably in the circumstances.

Staff conduct

It is noted that the resident raised her concerns about Officer A’s conduct in the beginning of October and chased the landlord approximately twice in November for a response. It is unclear why the landlord did not respond sooner. However, that it did not was unreasonable and this caused the resident time, trouble and distress.
After investigating the matter, the landlord issued its complaint report to the resident in November 2022. Within it, the landlord said that it had reviewed the resident’s case file for the previous 12 months. Given that the resident raised her concerns about Officer A’s recent and previous conduct, it was appropriate for the landlord to have broaden its investigation time period. This ensured that it was covering an appropriate time period and demonstrated that it was committed to investigating the resident’s concerns properly.
It also said that its investigation into Officer A’s conduct included reviewing telephone calls between Officer A and the resident, as well as interviewing Officer A. Amongst other actions that it took, this demonstrated that the landlord’s approach to this matter was considered and proactive. However, while we do not doubt that the landlord investigated the matter, it has been unable to provide this Service with the evidence that it had relied upon in its investigation as it outlined in its report. It has told this service that the evidence is not available. A landlord should have adequate systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet investigate the resident’s complaint properly. That it did not was a failing in its record keeping. As the contemporaneous evidence has not been provided to this Service, we have not been able to review the actions carried out by the landlord as part of its investigation. However, on balance, and given the detail contained in its complaint reports we are satisfied that it undertook a proportionate investigation into the concerns that were raised.
When responding to the resident’s complaint, it said that Officer A’s references to court action were not a threat nor were their actions a form of harassment. It did acknowledge that at times Officer A’s approach could have been “more supportive.” This went some way to respond to the resident’s concerns. However, the resident was concerned about Officer A not allowing her to speak and that he had stated that she was “making excuses” when she was unable to speak to him at times when he had called. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed these specific concerns, whether it was able to find such evidence or not. Also, it did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns that Officer A’s conduct affected her mental health. The failure to address these specific comments left part of the resident’s concerns left unanswered, and this was inappropriate. This was also a departure from the guidance set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord conducted a 2-stage complaint review of the resident’s escalated complaint. It said that it had agreed with its stage 1 complaint report. However, it added that its records showed that the resident had anxiety and was “highly” vulnerable. It said that this information should be displayed more prominently on her account so it could assist officers when they made contact with her. It was reasonable for the landlord to identify this. It also demonstrated that the landlord was taking proactive steps to ensure its future contact with the resident was tailored to her individual circumstances. This was appropriate and went some way to demonstrate that it was committed to prevent a reoccurrence of the events.
As with its stage 1 complaint report, the landlord acknowledged that it could have been “kinder and more understanding in some of the conversations.” However, it missed another opportunity to address the resident’s specific concerns that she raised about Officer A’s conduct.
The landlord’s complaint reports were detailed and provided the resident with an appropriate level of information that demonstrated that it had carried out an adequate investigation into her concerns. For example, it referred to specific calls that demonstrated that it had listened to the calls. It also provided the date of its interview with Officer A and provided a summary of the outcome. The landlord’s level of transparency on this matter is positive and welcomed. Its recommendations to put matters right, which included staff training and ensuring the resident’s vulnerabilities were visible on its rent management database were also reasonable and appropriate. Both actions demonstrated that it was putting measures in place to prevent such failures to occur in the future.
The landlord offered the resident £134.65 (a week’s rent) for distress caused. Given that it recognised that on approximately 2 occasions, Officer A’s telephone conduct could have been more supportive, the award was reasonable and proportionate for this failure. However, as noted above, not all of the resident’s concerns were addressed which meant her concerns were left unanswered. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of staff misconduct. A series of orders have been made aimed at putting things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On 3 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord her concerns about Officer A’s telephone conduct. She also completed the landlord’s online complaint form the following day. The evidence available demonstrates that despite this, the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to her complaint at this time.
Subsequently the resident reiterated her concerns about Officer A at the beginning of November 2022. Again, the evidence available does not demonstrate that the landlord responded.
It was not until the resident chased the landlord for a second time for a response to her complaint on 22 November 2022 that the landlord issued an acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would acknowledge residents’ complaints within 5 working days. Therefore its failure to respond to the resident within that timeframe went against its own policy.
Furthermore, the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident caused her time and trouble as she had to chase it for its responses. It also meant that it failed to take any action during this period, which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The Code states that effective complaint handling enables residents to be heard and understood. In this case, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in a timely manner undermined this principle. This was demonstrated when the resident at the time raised her concerns that the landlord was not taking her complaint seriously because it had not responded. Therefore, while the delay to acknowledge and progress the resident’s complaint is unknown, that there was one was a failing.
When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord called the resident the following day. It also followed up its call with an acknowledgement letter a few days later. This was reasonable and appropriate and aligned with its policy.
The acknowledgement letter explained that due to the Christmas holidays it would respond to the resident by 24 January 2023, which was outside of its 20 working days response deadline. The Code states that “Landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not be more than an extra 10 days without good reason.”
In this case as the extension was less than 10 working days, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a date in which it would respond. This also managed the resident’s expectations on when she could reasonably expect a response and mitigated any time and trouble caused by the resident chasing it for an update on her complaint. The landlord then issued its response along with its complaint report within its deadline, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s response was issued with its extended timeframe and included the complaint report. It also issued an apology as recommended by its report. However, it did not address that it had failed to acknowledge and progress the resident’s complaint within its own time frame. This caused the resident time, trouble and distress. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. In recognition of this, an order has been made for the landlord to compensate the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £414.64 comprising of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its response to the resident’s concerns about staff misconduct.
  2. £80 for the time, trouble and distress caused by its complaint handling.
  3. The £134.64 compensation offered to the resident during the complaints process. If this sum has already been paid to the resident, this may be deducted from the overall total.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should do the following within 4 weeks of the determination of this report:
1. confirm with this Service that it has undertaken additional customer and negotiation skill training.
2. confirm with this Service that the resident’s rent account is clearly marked to show that she is vulnerable.
3. confirm with the resident whether she would like to be signposted to any support services.
4. remind staff the importance of acknowledging and progressing residents’ complaints within its policy timeframe.
5. review its record keeping practices against our ‘knowledge and information management’ spotlight report’.