Home Group Limited (202309672)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309672

Home Group Limited

20 December 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 handling of:
   1. Concerns raised about staff conduct.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The resident’s tenancy is part of a supported accommodation scheme operated by the landlord. The local authority referred the resident into the scheme in June 2022 and they began their tenancy in September 2022. 
4. On 11 April 2023 two members of the landlord’s staff (‘staff member A’ and ‘staff member B’) attended the resident’s property to carry out a welfare check. During the visit there was an incident between the landlord and the resident, leading to both parties calling the police.
5. The following day (12 April 2023) the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the landlord attending their property. The resident alleged staff member A had shouted at them, had entered their property without reason, and told their visitors to leave.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 April 2023. It said:
   1. It had attended the resident’s property due to concerns about their welfare. When it arrived the resident was not present and there were two unknown people in the property, with one appearing to possibly be living there. This was not allowed under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
   2. It had spoken to the staff member A. They had said that when the resident had returned to the property they had been verbally abusive and aggressive. This behaviour had led them to calling the police.
   3. It understood the police had given advice to all parties but had not recorded any incidents.
   4. Staff member A had accepted they had heightened emotions during the incident, but did not agree they had shouted at the resident.
   5. Staff member A had been visibly upset and shaking when they had returned to the office after visiting the resident.
   6. Staff member B had corroborated the information provided by staff member A.
   7. It did not agree staff member A’s behaviour had been inappropriate, but apologised if the resident felt it had been. It said it would allocate a new support worker to the resident to prevent any future issues.
   8. It explained that, while it was aware the resident had been working with the local crisis team, the crisis team had not provided it with a care plan for the resident or any information about how it should speak to them. It advised it could speak to the crisis team with the resident’s written agreement.
7. On 25 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord recorded the resident raised concerns about:
   1. Not having received a stage 1 response.
   2. Staff members entering their property without due cause.
   3. The staff member’s approach towards them.
   4. Not having received any formal support in the last 2 months.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. It said:
   1. It had issued its stage 1 response on 26 April 2023. It had sent the response to the resident by post, but as the landlord does not use recorded delivery it was not possible to track the letter. It apologised if the resident had not received it and attached a copy.
   2. The staff members had explained they did not let themselves into the resident’s property but that the 2 individuals who were in the property at the time of the visit had allowed them in.
   3. It was satisfied that the staff members were carrying out a welfare check and this was a reasonable reason for them to have attended.
   4. It acknowledged there had been a difficult conversation between the resident and staff member A, but explained there was no evidence to support that the staff member had acted inappropriately.
   5. It accepted that the resident had not been receiving their formal support sessions. It provided an apology and advised it had addressed this with the relevant teams. It explained the support team would be in contact with the resident to arrange appointments for future support sessions.
9. On 17 June 2023 the resident referred their complaint to this service as they remained unhappy with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

10. On 22 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about it not having gotten accounts from their witness, the police, or adult social care. They said that had the landlord done so it would have been given information that showed the staff members’ versions of events were wrong. The landlord agreed that it would contact the parties mentioned to ask for any relevant information and would then provide the resident with a further response.
11. The landlord issued its further response on 18 August 2023. It said:
    1. It had not originally contacted the witness as the resident had not mentioned them until after it had issued its stage 2 response. It had now tried to contact the witness several times but had not had a response.
    2. It had spoken to the police who had explained that, when officers arrived, all parties had been calm and there was no evidence to confirm who may have started the incident. The police advised that, on the day of the incident, the landlord had contacted them first.
    3. It had attempted to contact adult social care several times without response. It noted that the resident had advised they would make contact and ask adult social care to respond to the landlord. It said, if this happened, it would consider any new information and share the outcome with the resident.
    4. It confirmed the further investigation had not changed the outcome it had reached in its response of 14 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of concerns raised about staff conduct

12. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether a staff member of a landlord has misconducted themselves. That is an employment matter for the landlord to consider. The role of the Ombudsman is instead to consider whether the landlord’s handling of any reports was reasonable and in line with its policies.
13. The landlord has provided a copy of its disciplinary policy. It explained that, if a complaint is made about a staff member, it will carry out a fact-finding exercise to decide if there is evidence to suggest the staff member had not followed the landlord’s policies, procedures, or values. If the landlord considers there is evidence it will formally investigate. This is a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
14. The landlord’s actions to investigate the resident’s concerns, as detailed in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, were in line with its policy and were appropriate. The landlord has provided this service with evidence to demonstrate that it did speak with relevant staff members.
15. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for why it had not contacted the resident’s witness, the police, or adult social care during the stage 1 or stage 2 complaint investigation. This service has not been provided with any evidence to show that, before its stage 2 response, the resident had provided the landlord with details of their witness or that the landlord had any information which suggested the police or adult social care had any concerns about its staff.
16. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident disagrees with the findings reached by the landlord, the available evidence indicates the landlord carried out an appropriate investigation of the resident’s concerns. The landlord was entitled to reach a decision that it did not consider there was sufficient evidence to support the resident’s complaint against the staff member and that it would take no further action.
17. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could reasonably conclude that the landlord’s decision making was flawed or that it failed to take into account any relevant information that may have impacted on the decision it made.
18. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about staff conduct.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

19. There does not appear to be any dispute that the resident did not receive the landlord’s stage 1 response. It appears this was due to the response being lost in the postal system, rather than any action (or inaction) by the landlord.
20. It was reasonable for the landlord to post the decision to the resident. The Ombudsman is not aware of any obligations that would have required the landlord to use a recorded delivery service. Without any clear evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman does not consider it would be reasonable to hold the landlord responsible for the stage 1 response not being delivered to the resident.
21. While the Ombudsman notes the landlord did attach a copy of the stage 1 response to its stage 2 response, it should have provided this copy as soon as it had become aware the resident had not received the original response. The resident would then have been aware of the stage 1 outcome while the stage 2 investigation was ongoing. This would have allowed them to raise any additional concerns with the landlord before the stage 2 response was issued.
22. There is no evidence that not receiving the stage 1 response caused the resident any detriment. The landlord accepted their request to escalate the complaint on 26 May 2023 and spoke to them on 1 June 2023 to discuss the ongoing matters. At this time the landlord accepted the additional complaint point of the resident not having received formal support for 2 months. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take.
23. Following the resident raising additional concerns after the stage 2 response, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to investigate further. The Ombudsman has noted that at the time the landlord took this action there is no evidence it was aware the resident had contacted this service. The landlord’s actions, in the Ombudsman’s view, indicate it remained focused on trying to reach a satisfactory outcome to the resident’s concerns, even after its formal complaint procedure had been exhausted.
24. Having considered all circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the failure identified at paragraph 20 was minor and caused no detriment to the resident. On this basis, and for the other reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports about staff conduct.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.