From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

City of Lincoln Council (202425384)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425384

Lincoln City Council

17 April 2025


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 the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lived with his mother who was a tenant of the landlord. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he has mental health concerns.
  2. On or around 27 August 2024, a member of landlord staff (Officer A) visited the resident to discuss his request to succeed his mother’s tenancy following her death. The following day, the resident made a formal complaint about Officer A. He said he had found her conduct and behaviour to be “disgusting” at the visit. He stated that she accused him of “jumping the queue”. He also expressed concern that she “did not show compassion” given that he had lost several members of his family in the past year. The resident added that there were witnesses to Officer A’s behaviour and asked the landlord to carry out a “full investigation” into her conduct.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 September 2024. It said it was sorry that the resident was dissatisfied with the service offered by Officer A.
  4. On 16 September 2024 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. While he did not refer to concerns about Officer A, or the stage 1 response, he said 2 staff members (Officer D and Officer J) accused him of being a “liar” during the complaints process and he wished to complain about them.
  5. On 11 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. it did not have evidence that Officer D or Officer J called the resident “a liar directly”. It said it “seemed likely” that they disagreed with the resident’s statements and that he may have interpreted it as being called a liar.
    2. staff members did not “intentionally make the situation worse”, but it could see that the matter had a “detrimental” impact on the resident’s mental health. It apologised for any distress caused.
    3. it would be reviewing its policies and procedures following the death of a tenant to ensure that it takes an empathetic approach.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has explained that the landlord’s actions in this case affected his mental health. The resident’s comments are noted. However, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

  1. When considering the resident’s complaint it is not for us to investigate the incident itself, or reach a conclusion as to the conduct of landlord staff. Instead, the Ombudsman can determine whether the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, and whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
  2. While the resident’s original formal complaint was about Officer A, there is no evidence to demonstrate that he escalated his concerns about her to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. As such, we have not assessed how the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about Officer A, as this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. However, the landlord did investigate the resident’s concerns about Officers D and J at stage 2. Therefore, we have assessed its handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to this matter. We have considered the landlord’s complaint handling later in this report.
  3. The landlord’s employee conduct policy states that it expects its staff members to be welcoming, helpful, informative, and courteous as well as being professional to its customers. However, it is unclear how the landlord investigates concerns about staff conduct and whether there is a policy or internal guidance that is followed in such instances. In absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s actions, and response to the resident’s concerns, on the basis of reasonableness.
  4. While the specific date is unknown, the evidence suggests that around mid-September 2024, the resident discussed his complaint about Officer A and other matters in person with Officer D and Officer J on separate occasions. We do not have contemporaneous records relating to the conversations. Therefore, the specific details of what was discussed are unclear. Nonetheless, the resident escalated his complaint on 16 September 2024 after speaking to the officers. He stated that they had accused him of being a “liar” when he had spoken to them.
  5. The landlord has not provided us with Officer D’s account of events. It is unclear whether it interviewed her as part of its investigation during the complaint process and no record was kept, or that it did not interview her. However, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took proportionate steps to interview Officer D as part of its investigation. We have been provided with evidence that the landlord obtained a statement from a witness that was present at the meeting between the resident and Officer D as part of its investigation. This was appropriate.
  6. The landlord has also provided Officer J’s account of his conversations with the resident as part of its investigation. It is also acknowledged that the landlord met with the resident at the end of October 2024 to discuss his complaint further. That was appropriate. The evidence suggests that the resident played a recording of his conversation with the officers to the landlord at this visit to show as evidence of them calling him calling a liar. The landlord has told us that it determined that the recording did not indicate any misconduct by either officer. We have not been provided with a copy of the recording; however, it was appropriate for the landlord to review this when investigating the resident’s concerns.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that it did not find evidence that either officer had called the resident a liar “directly”. It stated that it “was likely” that they may have disagreed with the resident’s statements and that he may have interpreted their disagreement as being called a liar.
  8. While the landlord did not identify any failings on behalf of its staff, it recognised that the events had been the cause of upset to the resident. It appropriately apologised to the resident for any distress caused. It also stated that it would review is policies and practices around the death of a tenant to ensure that staff members take an empathetic approach in such circumstances. This was the desired outcome that the resident had communicated to the landlord as part of his complaint. Therefore, the landlord’s response was reasonable, appropriate, and demonstrated that it was trying to put things right.
  9. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable and proportionate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. It obtained officer and witness statements. It also met with the resident to discuss his concerns and provided a response to his complaint. It also apologised for any distress caused and stated that it would review its policies and practices. Therefore, we have found that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff misconduct.
  10. As highlighted above, we were not provided with contemporaneous evidence of the conversations with Officer D and the outcome of its meeting with the resident. It is unclear if these exist; however, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to ensure that it is maintaining a clear and accurate audit trail of actions taken to investigate a complaint. This includes notes from meetings and/or interviews with staff members.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident’s initial complaint was about Officer A. He stated that Officer A accused him of “jumping the queue” and did not show compassion despite his circumstances at the time. He asked the landlord to investigate his concerns.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that it was sorry that the resident was dissatisfied with the service from Officer A. While the apology was reasonable, the overall response was inadequate. The landlord did not demonstrate that it appropriately investigated his concerns and the landlord did not say what conclusion had been reached after considering the matter further.
  4. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have meaningfully investigated the resident’s concerns about Officer A’s conduct. The investigation could have included a review of its records and interviewing Officer A and relevant witnesses about the visit. The information gathered in such an investigation would have meant that it would have been able to provide the resident with an appropriate response. It would have also meant that it had appropriately reviewed its handling of the matter and considered whether it required to take any action to put matters right. Given the landlord’s vague response and the available evidence, there is no indication that it did. This meant that the resident’s specific concerns went unaddressed. That was unreasonable, and a departure from the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  5. It is acknowledged that the resident did not express concern with the response he had received from the landlord at stage 1. Rather, when he asked for his complaint to be escalated, his concerns turned to the conduct of two other members of staff instead. While the concerns about Officer D and Officer J were related to the incident with Officer A, these were new complaints. The Code states that where the stage 1 complaint response has been issued, any new unrelated issues should be logged as a new complaint. Given that the resident had raised new issues, the reason that the landlord did not raise a new complaint is unclear. However, as it did not, the resident received a single response to his concerns about Officer D and Officer J and did not have the opportunity to escalate the matter with the landlord even though he remained unhappy with the response he had received.
  6. As the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns as an escalated complaint, in line with its complaint policy, its stage 2 response was due on or around 15 October 2024. However, there is no evidence that the landlord progressed the resident’s complaint until it contacted him on that day for further information. Nor is there evidence that it informed the resident that its response would be delayed during this period. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he was reasonably expecting a response to his complaint at that time. Therefore, while the reason that the landlord did not take the above actions are unclear, that it did not was unreasonable.
  7. On 23 October 2024 the landlord apologised to the resident that it had not issued its response to his complaint. It explained that Officer D was not currently in work, so it was unable to discuss his complaint with her. It also explained that it was still gathering information such as witness statements. It was reasonable for the landlord to have updated the resident on his complaint. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided him with a revised response deadline. This would have been in accordance with the Code that states landlords must inform residents of the expected timescale for its response. Providing a response timescale would have ensured the resident was appropriately informed as to when to reasonably expect a response to his complaint. Given that the landlord’s response was already delayed, this may have mitigated any further distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 11 November 2024. This was 40 working days after the resident had escalated his complaint. This was a significant deviation from its policy timescales of 20 working days. There is no evidence that the delays were fully unavoidable. Therefore, the landlord’s delayed response was a failing.
  9. Given the landlord’s failings highlighted in this investigation, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  10. On 8 February 2024 the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlord must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress because we are satisfied that the landlord took action to put matters right in its handling of the resident’s  concerns about staff conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failings identified in this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. confirm that it will consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should ensure that it is maintaining a clear and accurate audit trail of actions taken to investigate a complaint. This includes notes from meetings and/or interviews with staff members.