Ashton Pioneer Homes Limited (202229724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229724

Ashton Pioneer Homes Limited

5 August 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:
1. The landlords handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and has access to communal facilities including an IT suite which the resident does make use of. The resident has vulnerabilities, the landlord was not aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 November 2021 regarding a conversation he had with a member of the landlord’s staff. In summary, he stated as follows:
1. He and members of his family had run into the member of staff on 7 October 2021 following a separate meeting with different members of staff regarding his tenancy on 6 October 2021. The member of staff had asked how the meeting went and that it was nice to meet the resident’s family.
2. That on 21 October 2021 the same member of staff had approached him in the communal tenant’s area and had referred to his brother as a “goodie two shoes”. They then tried to turn this into a joke once they saw the resident’s shocked expression. He believed that the member of staff who was helping him with a separate issue, made small talk about his brother to gain information about the tenancy meeting on 6 October 2021.
3. That his brother was a very private person and had found her comments and the way she tried to laugh it off very distressing.
4. He asked that the staff members actions and the complaint would be investigated and dealt with appropriately.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 November 2021 and stated it had spoken to the member of staff in question who explained that the conversation was about the resident’s wellbeing and was not intended to cause the resident offence. It stated it would be helpful to have a conversation with the resident to better understand what has caused offence and suggested he met with it on 22 November 2021.
The resident responded on 14 November 2021 and explained that he did not feel that the conversation was about his wellbeing as the member of staff had made specific comments about his brother who they had never asked about before despite being aware of his brother for around 18 months. He maintained that he did not feel the staff member was concerned about his wellbeing as he had left a volunteering event early that Thursday 11 November 2021 due to a misunderstanding and the staff member had not contacted him regarding the misunderstanding.
He specified that he was offended that the staff member had used his brother and assisted him with a separate issue to try and get information about his tenancy meeting on 6 October 2021 and they thought they had the right to pass judgement by calling his brother a goodie two shoes after a very brief meeting and had then turned this into a joke.
The resident was unable to attend on 22 November 2021. The landlord arranged further meetings on 9 December 2021 and 22 April 2022. The resident was unable to attend a meeting with the landlord until 4 May 2022. The Ombudsman has been provided with the recording of the meeting as part of the landlord’s evidence submissions. Various issues were discussed by the resident, his mother and brother. In relation to the resident’s complaint about the staff member, he raised concern that:
1. This was not the first time the staff member had said something out of turn but that they had previously apologised for this, and he had not taken the matter further.
2. He believed that the staff member had acted differently toward him since the complaint. He had been told that he could no longer be involved in the volunteering group around the same time he had raised the complaint which he felt was linked. He had also been informed that he could not use the IT suite while the investigation was ongoing.
3. He explained that he had ADHD and was on the autistic spectrum and that these activities had been beneficial for him and had given him a routine. When access to these activities was removed, he was significantly impacted and believed this was the result of him raising the complaint.
4. He and his family had also received the feedback provided by the staff member when the landlord had discussed his complaint with them and were deeply upset that the staff member had suggested that his mother had been derogatory towards him during the chance meeting on 7 October 2021 as all parties were laughing and joking during the conversation.
5. The staff member said he had confided in them, when he had not, as he did not confide in anyone.
The landlord concluded the meeting by saying it would contact the resident after it had spoken again to the staff member. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 May 2022. It thanked the resident for attending the meeting on 4 May 2022 and stated that it found the resident’s complaint to be unfounded and that the staff members conduct towards the resident was not unreasonable and therefore the complaint was not upheld. It stated that there would be no meeting arranged with the staff member as was requested by the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint on 12 June 2022, he stated that he thought he would be getting an apology from the landlord’s staff after the meeting of 4 May 2022 but instead he was told his complaint was unfounded. He maintained he wanted an apology for the way he had been treated for defending his brother and wanted the staff member to confirm what information he supposedly confided in them considering that he did not confide in many people.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 June 2022. In summary, it stated as follows:
1. It confirmed that the remedy the resident sought was a face-to-face apology from its staff member for making those comments.
2. That the resident was given an opportunity to present his case at the meeting held on 4 May 2022 and in addition an interview with the staff member was conducted.
3. That the staff member was devastated by the accusations made by the resident and explained there was never any intention to cause upset or offence to the resident or his family members by their comments. The staff member advised that they had always tried to support the resident during his attendance and participation with activities at the Community Base and that they even donated a fridge freezer to him when he told them his was broken.
4. It concluded its response by stating that it would offer its apologies if the resident and his family were offended by a comment made with best intentions and in good faith by a staff member. It found the resident’s complaint to have been dealt with appropriately at stage 1 and the complaint was not upheld.
The resident contacted this Service to investigate his complaint and confirmed he wanted an apology from the staff member as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported that the handling of this complaint has negatively affected his and his mother’s health. While we do not doubt his comments regarding this, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so; this would be better suited for a court to decide upon. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The resident has requested that this Service asks the landlord’s staff to reveal what information the resident confided to him. This Service is not able to compel the landlord’s staff to reveal any information, however the resident can make a subject access request to the landlord under the Data Protection Act 2018 to obtain a copy of their personal information as well as other supplementary information held by the landlord.
The resident has asked for an apology on behalf of his mum for false allegations made against her. This Service has not seen evidence that this complaint has completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The resident has requested an apology from the landlord’s staff for poverty shaming him over a fridge freezer. This Service has not seen evidence that this complaint has completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the residents concerns regarding staff conduct.

The resident has expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s staff conduct. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
The landlord’s records show it spoke to the member of staff regarding the resident’s concerns on 12 November 2021. It emailed the resident to gain a further understanding of his concerns and arranged a meeting for 22 November 2021 to discuss his complaint. The landlord acted appropriately by discussing the resident’s complaint with the staff member once this was received. This is in line with what we would expect the landlord to do when receiving a report about staff conduct. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange to speak to the resident in person regarding his concerns to seek a clearer understanding of his perspective.
The meeting was held on 4 May 2022. There was a delay in the meeting being conducted due to the resident’s availability and the impact of COVID-19 which was outside of the landlord’s control. However, it is noted that the resident had commented on the impact the length of time the issue was ongoing had on him within the meeting and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this.
During his meeting with the landlord, the resident raised various concerns and the landlord said it would arrange a meeting with the staff member to discuss the concerns with them. It has not provided records to show that it took any further steps to investigate the resident’s concerns with the staff member. It did act fairly in the meeting by addressing specific concerns about removing the resident from the volunteering group and IT suite. But it would have also been appropriate for it to have addressed the relevant aspects of the meeting in its stage one complaint response to provide a fuller response.
The use of the word unfounded in the landlord’s complaint response was unfairly dismissive given the impact the resident had said the matter had on him during the meeting in addition to not explaining what it thought was unfounded and explaining its position. This was also likely to come as a shock to the resident as the landlord had said it had gained a greater understanding of his concerns during the meeting and he had been led to believe that the landlord shared the intention to resolve the issue and “draw a line” under the matter.
Given the impact the resident said the matter had on him, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this in its response regardless of whether it believed the staff members actions were not intended to cause offence. The stage 1 complaint response failed to consider the ongoing impact this may have or seek to improve the landlord tenant relationship which would have been appropriate given the comments the resident had made about the impact making the complaint itself had on him.
While it is acceptable for a landlord to say it had investigated and found no failing, in this case the resident was evidently upset and distressed by the “goody two shoes” comment and the fact that the issue had escalated since he made the complaint. Given that it was aware of the impact, the landlord’s use of “if you were offended” in its stage 2 complaint response does not appear to acknowledge the resident’s feelings. Neither the stage 1 or 2 complaint response sought to put right the situation or improve the relationship that had broken down between the member of staff and the resident. The relationship between the resident and member of staff is important as given the communal facilities it is likely that both the resident and member of staff would meet each other in the future.
The landlord was within its right to say that the staff member’s comments were not made with bad intentions and that it had investigated the matter. However, it should have acknowledged the impact the resident said this had caused as it is evident from the recording of the meeting that this was significant. Instead of being dismissive of the resident’s concerns it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have sought to improve the relationship that had broken down between the resident and the staff member.
This was a failing by the landlord as this broken-down relationship would have affected the resident negatively and caused distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there is a failure that adversely affected the resident. This Service will be making an order for the landlord to pay the resident £200 for distress and inconvenience in accordance with our remedies guidance.
The landlords’ complaints policy states that if a customer expresses dissatisfaction with its service it would try to put things right at the earliest opportunity and that an apology is a remedy that can be offered. The resident stated during the meeting of 4 May 2022 that as a resolution to the complaint he would like an apology from the staff member.
The landlord had an opportunity to put things right early for the resident by issuing an apology at stage 1 of its complaints process. The landlord missed this opportunity by not issuing an apology at stage 1. This landlord failed to comply with its policy by not putting things right at the earliest opportunity for the resident and not apologising at stage 1. This was not reasonable; this Service would have expected the landlord to put things right at stage 1 by issuing an apology.
An apology is an opportunity to restore trust and begin to mend the resident/landlord relationship. A well-made apology is an important and powerful tool in resolving a complaint – particularly at an early stage. I accept that where a landlord is unable to identify any obvious failings in its handling of the matter, it provides the landlord with more of a challenge in providing a meaningful apology in its complaint response. However, there were shortfalls in the landlord’s handling of the apology.
In view of the failings found above, there was service failure by the landlord with regards to it not issuing an apology at stage 1, not taking into consideration the impact making the complaint had on the resident and not trying to fix the broken relationship between the member of staff and the resident. An order has been made below to reflect this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was a long delay at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident made his formal complaint on 8 November 2021 and the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was on 17 May 2022. The landlord arranged a number of face-to-face meetings during this period which were cancelled by the resident until the meeting took place on 4 May 2022. I accept that the best way for the landlord to understand the complaint was to discuss the matter in full with the resident (with the support of his family). The landlord acted appropriately in waiting for the meeting to go ahead before providing a complaint response. Although the landlord could have been more proactive in arranging further meetings and providing updates after December 2021, given the COVID-19 ‘stay at home’ order in place at that time, the landlord’s actions were not unreasonable.
.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not clearly explain the reason for stating that the resident’s complaint was ‘unfounded’. The landlord should have instead explained that its staff member and the resident have different interpretations of the matter. The use of ‘unfounded’ diminished the resident’s experience and indicated that they were mistaken or were acting in bad faith. This would have left the resident feeling frustrated and contributed to him escalating his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. This was a shortfall in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not address all the issues the resident raised in his escalation request of 12 June 2022. The stage 2 complaint response was not in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, which would have expected the landlord to address all the outstanding concerns raised by the resident in its final response. This lack of a complete response by the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2 would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident, this was a failing by the landlord. Due to the failures identified above, this Service will be making an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must do the following within the next four weeks:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £250 comprised of:
  1. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in respect of how the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct were handled.
  2. £50 for its complaint handling.
2. Write to the resident and his mother to apologise for the failings identified in the report and explain what it intends to do to improve the landlord/resident relationship moving forward.
3. Take steps to implement the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies into its working practices.

Recommendations

This Service recommends that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes and relationships to establish points of learning, especially around positive ways of interacting with residents with vulnerabilities.