Adur District Council (202221520)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221520

Adur District Council

26 April 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, she resides in a first floor flat.
3. On 3 November 2022 the landlord carried out a home visit to the resident to discuss the ‘inner rooms project’. The layout of the property at the time meant that the bedroom could only be accessed via the living room. The purpose of the visit was to discuss the proposal of creating a permanent corridor to mitigate the fire risk level.
4. During this visit the resident was unhappy with the conduct of a member of staff. Immediately after the visit she raised a complaint with the landlord, saying that the staff member was exceptionally rude and dismissive, cutting her off and not listening to her concerns.
5. On 29 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase the complaint response. She said that since logging the complaint 2 different caseworkers had been assigned and she had sent several messages which had gone unanswered.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 January 2023. It confirmed that it had investigated the complaint and apologised that she felt the staff member was rude in her response. It went on to say that it had reviewed all further correspondence and was satisfied that the information provided was correct.
7. On 5 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint and requested an apology from the individual. She was also unhappy that the landlord did not adhere to the timescales set out within its complaints policy and failed to apologise or provide an explanation for this.
8. Following the escalation request, the resident chased several times before the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 February 2023. Within its response, the landlord said that it was not the individual’s intention to cause offense nor her belief that she had. However, it accepted that in the context of the meeting the resident may have perceived the behaviour as unacceptable for which it apologised. The landlord also acknowledged that it failed to meet its own deadlines for responding to the complaint, it apologised and said that it would ask officers to review their response times.

Assessment and findings

Landlords’ response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

9. 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.
10. In responding to a complaint regarding staff conduct it would be appropriate for the landlord to share a reasonable and proportionate level of detail with the resident regarding its investigation and the outcome. While it is noted that the landlord did apologise for any perceived inappropriate behaviour within its stage 1 response, it failed to provide adequate details of the steps it had taken to investigate the allegations. It said that it had reviewed all further correspondence and was happy that the information provided was correct. This did not address the original concerns raised by the resident or acknowledge the distress the incident had caused.
11. The landlord has informed this service that it has no records of the investigation process as this was carried out verbally. Where allegations are made about the conduct of an individual it would be appropriate for the landlord to keep an accurate record of any interviews carried out, informal or not. In this case, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have spoken to the other staff member who was present during the visit. In the absence of such records, we are unable to determine if this happened or not.
12. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord did attempt to provide a more detailed account. It said that during the meeting the staff member attempted to respond to specific queries but experienced poor signal on her mobile device, causing some frustration. In addition, it said that the visit was ‘interrupted’ by the resident’s partner, therefore it was ‘unsurprising’ that one or more parties were perceived to be interrupting or talking over another person. It summarised by saying that it was not the individual’s intention or belief that she was rude but accepted that in the circumstance this is how it may have been perceived. Although it appropriately apologised it again failed to sympathetically acknowledge the impact that this evidently had upon the resident.  
13. In summary, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not appropriately address the complaint. It failed to demonstrate that it had taken her concerns seriously by providing a reasonable description of the steps taken to investigate the matter, nor did it acknowledge the distress and upset that the situation had caused. While its final response was more detailed, this also failed to acknowledge any impact or demonstrate any learning, amounting to a service failure. It is also clear from the lack of evidence available that the landlord’s investigation process is lacking, therefore recommendations have been made below in relation to this.

Landlord’s complaint handling

14. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 days at stage 1. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome and requests a review of the matter, the landlord aims to provide a response within 15 days thereafter.
15. The landlord exceeded its own policy timescales at both stages, resulting in the resident having to chase a response on numerous occasions. The resident reports that she sent several messages to the landlord and tried to make contact without reply.
16. The stage 1 response was issued on 3 January 2023, 22 working days after it was raised. This delay was not acknowledged within its response, therefore no explanation or apology was offered to the resident. The landlord did offer an apology within its stage 2 response; however, this was also issued 10 days late.
17. The landlord operates an automated complaints system whereby the resident receives updates when the case has been allocated to a caseworker. After requesting an escalation on 5 January 2023, the resident received at least 2 notifications saying that the case had been allocated to different people. While the evidence shows that this was due to staff absences it clearly caused confusion and frustration for the resident and led to further delays. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow its own policy and inform the resident of any likely delays due to the change in case ownership.
18. In summary, the landlord failed to follow its complaints handling policy, its responses were not issued in a timely manner, and it did not provide the resident with notification of any delays. As a result, the resident spent time and trouble chasing the landlord and felt that her concerns were not being taken seriously.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

21. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of its failures to acknowledge the distress caused by its response to concerns about staff conduct.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £100 for the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling delays.
    3. Provide this Service with evidence of the above payment.
22. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must review its process for investigating complaints about staff conduct. It must provide this Service with a summary of what improvements it intends to make to ensure that accurate records are kept for the benefit of all concerned.