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

Camden Council (202215340)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215340

Camden Council

29 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord with the tenancy commencing in November 2010. The property is a ground floor flat within a sheltered scheme and there are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 27 May 2022, the resident reported that a member of caretaking staff had deliberately blown debris in her face using a leaf blower. On 30 May 2022, the caretaker and the manager met with the resident to discuss the incident. The landlord said that during the meeting the resident was abusive and swearing at the members of staff.
  3. The landlord sent a warning letter to the resident on 31 May 2022 in relation to reports of abusive behaviour towards its staff. It said that verbal abuse against its staff would not be tolerated, and a copy of the warning letter would be placed on her file.
  4. The resident contacted this service on 14 October 2022 saying she had not received a response to her complaint made to the landlord in May 2022. She said that dirt was blown into her eye by a leaf blower, and it was swollen. She requested compensation. This service contacted the landlord on 14 October and 16 November for a response in relation to the resident’s complaint.
  5. On 23 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord, and it raised a formal complaint. She gave details of the leaf blowing incident and said that the caretaker’s behaviour was “not right or appropriate.” She said that the manager who investigated the issue wrote to her, but she was unhappy with the response and the written warning she received for “alleging that she abused the caretaker.”
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response in relation to the leaf blowing incident dated 20 December 2022. It explained that it had reviewed correspondence from the resident and reports from its staff members in relation to the incident. It said that it had tried to make arrangements to meet with the resident, but she declined, with both the landlord and resident having cancelled previous meetings. It explained whilst it could not reach a common ground based on the evidence, it offered the resident £100 and an apology on behalf of its service for the time and inconvenience the resident had spent in raising the complaint.
  7. The landlord says the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 February 2023. This was not disputed by the resident. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 17 May 2023, apologising for its delay which it said was due to heavy workloads. It said that the resident did not accept the £100 compensation previously awarded and was seeking a sum of around £400 to £500. It explained that it was unaware of any witnesses to the alleged leaf blowing incident. Therefore, as there were 2 different accounts, it could not clarify the accurate version of events and did not feel able to increase its offer.
  8. It went on to say however, that it “had some verification in relation to the language the resident had used and could not withdraw or amend its records to remove the reference to the language reported. Furthermore, its council officers were not able to visit to view the condition of the residents eye, as per her request, as they were not medically trained. It said that if the resident had sought medical attention following the incident she should provide this to the landlord. It also directed the resident to the Citizens Advice Bureau should she want to consider legal redress.
  9. Following recent contact with the resident she said that she is unhappy that the member of staff was not “pulled in” to discuss the incident and that she refused the £100 compensation offered to her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.

  1. This Service is not in a position to make a determination on the conduct or behaviours of the landlord’s staff when there is no conclusive evidence to support either parties’ version of events. The role of this Service is to determine if the landlord thoroughly investigated the issue and took appropriate action based on its findings.
  2. When a resident makes a complaint about staff conduct, the landlord should investigate objectively, and provide the resident with a timely response that clearly sets out the outcome of its investigation. If the resident’s concerns are justified, the landlord should acknowledge the mistakes and take appropriate action to put things right.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy says it defines a complaint as “when someone lets us know that they are unhappy with our service, and they want us to take action to resolve it.” It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this includes complaints about staff members and therefore this policy will be applied for this purpose.
  4. On 27 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that a member of caretaking staff had deliberately blown debris in her face using a leaf blower. Following this, on 30 May 2022 a meeting was attended by the resident, caretaker, and the manager. Whilst there are no case notes to evidence this, the resident has not disputed that the meeting occurred. Therefore, it was an appropriate and prompt response by the landlord.
  5. Furthermore, it was in line with its complaint policy which says its aim is to resolve complaints for residents as quickly and simply as possible and initially it is done informally. If a complaint has not been dealt with satisfactorily, then the formal procedure is started.
  6. The landlord says that during the meeting the resident became abusive and was swearing at staff. Something the resident denies. There were no case notes provided by the landlord to confirm the events from the meeting. This was despite this Service’s initial request for evidence and a further request as part of this investigation.
  7. Therefore, there is no evidence to demonstrate that notes were made, or they were just not provided to this service, which was not appropriate. Either way the landlord should be able to provide notes from the meeting.
  8. Paragraph 10 b of the Scheme says members must provide copies (without charge) of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. This may include any internal files, documents, correspondence, records, accounts, or minutes of meetings, in hard copy or electronic form.
  9. Following the meeting of 30 May 2023, the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident on 31 May 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to send the resident a warning letter following the reports from both members of staff present at the meeting. The landlord’s staff code of conduct says that “if a member of the public is abusive or unreasonable and you cannot ease the situation, you should try to end the conversation politely and then tell your manager. As the members of staff present at the meeting included the manager, it was reasonable for the landlord to accept the events outlined to them, taking action it thought appropriate in the circumstance.
  10. Furthermore, the warning letter was appropriately sent promptly and as close to the reported event occurring as possible. That being within 1 day.
  11. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it outlined its understanding of the resident’s complaint and explained it had reviewed correspondence from the resident and reports from its staff. This was appropriate as it provided details of what action it took to investigate the incident.
  12. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to evidence the correspondence, or any case notes it relied upon as part of its investigation. Record keeping is a core function for a landlord when providing services. Accurate records help the ombudsman understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time of the event. A recommendation had been made in relation to this.
  13. Despite this, the landlord’s stage 1 response clearly outlined that the information was taken from the staff members statement and was comprehensive in the details it provided. The landlord was not obliged to provide the resident with copies of staff statements.
  14. It went on to say that it had tried to arrange a meeting with the resident, which she declined following cancelled meetings both on the part of the landlord and the resident. This was evidenced by internal emails. It was within the resident’s rights to refuse, nevertheless, the proposed meeting was an appropriate step to provide the resident with an opportunity to clearly put her account across.
  15. In its stage 2 response the landlord clarified that the caretaker denied blowing debris at the resident deliberately and said it was unaware of any witnesses to the incident. It explained its decision by saying that “with 2 differing accounts” it could not establish “the accurate version of events” and did not feel able to increase the offer of compensation. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  16. It was also right for the landlord to suggest the resident seek legal redress if she thought the actions of the caretaker were deliberate and suggested discussing the matter with Citizens Advice Bureau. This was another example of the landlord being resolution focused, by suggesting another avenue for the resident as it was not able to further progress the matter itself.
  17. Furthermore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for its staff members to view her eye injury as its staff are not medically trained to make any meaningful medical assessment.
  18. In summary, whilst this service identified recording keeping failures by the landlord, it has demonstrated that it has took the resident’s concerns regarding its staff conduct seriously. Furthermore, it investigated accordingly with the information it was provided by speaking with staff, outlining what staff members said in its responses and offering the resident the opportunity to put her side of events across.
  19. Therefore, there was no failure in how the landlord responded to the report of staff conduct but a recommendation has been made for recording keeping.
  20. As outlined above there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of this complaint, gave 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response, and 25 working days for a stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord said in its final response that the resident initially raised her complaint on 23 November 2022. However, the resident says she raised a complaint in May 2022. The landlord provided an excerpt from its case notes detailing the resident’s call of November 2022 to raise a formal complaint.
  3. It has not been disputed that the resident reported the leaf blowing incident on 27 May 2022, which is when the resident said she raised a formal complaint. Furthermore, it has not been disputed that a meeting was held between the resident, the caretaker and the manager following the incident on 30 May 2022.
  4. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord followed its complaints policy to resolve complaints informally first, which demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to resolve the complaint “as quickly and simply as possible as per its policy. This was appropriate.
  5. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to evidence it confirmed the outcome at the informal stage to the resident and to her satisfaction, which in turn delayed progressing matters to a formal complaint.
  6. This service complaint handling code says, “it is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘informal complaint’) as this causes unnecessary confusion. It goes on to say that “a process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman.
  7. The formal complaint was raised on 23 November 2022 and the landlord sent a stage 1 response dated 20 December 2022. Whilst this response was clear and detailed, it was sent 19 working days later, therefore the response was late and sent outside of its policy timescale. This was not appropriate.
  8. It also offered the resident £100 compensation for her time and trouble in raising the complaint which was proportionate for its delay in responding at stage 1 and that it did not properly confirm to the resident that it was informally dealing with her complaint.
  9. The landlord said that the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 February 2023, and this was not disputed by the resident. Its final response was sent on 17 May 2023, which detailed the action it took and explained its reasons why it could not increase the compensation which was appropriate. Nevertheless, the final response was sent 53 working days later and significantly outside of its policy timescale of 25 working days, which was not appropriate.
  10. In summary, although the complaint responses were clear and detailed, they were sent significantly outside of its 10-working day and 25 working day policy timescale. It was unfair to the resident that the landlord failed to adhere to its complaint policy with both responses being late, causing the resident distress and inconvenience.
  11. The landlord had apologised for the delays and offered £100 compensation at stage 1, but failed to offer any compensation at stage 2, for the 53 working day delay in providing a final response.
  12. As evidenced above there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling, and an additional £100 compensation has been awarded to reflect the impact experienced by the resident and the delay in bringing a final resolution for 2 months.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
  2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £100 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation previously offered to her.
  2. Completion of this Service’s free online knowledge and information management training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.
  3. Review any reference to an informal stage within its complaints policy, and take necessary action to ensure the policy is compliant with this service complaint handling code.