Dartford Borough Council (202301711)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301711

Dartford Borough Council

7 June 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a first floor flat in a block, and the landlord is the freeholder. The resident purchased the lease to the property in January 2017. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. In May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to ask her to stop building works at her property, as she did not have permission to do the works. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the matter on 3 June 2022. The landlord responded on 6 June 2022, and did not uphold her complaint. Its response stated it wanted to reach an “amicable” resolution with the resident, and it would consider the matter resolved if she completed “reinstatement works” to return the property to its original condition.
4. The resident asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 6 June 2022. The landlord and resident agreed for the stage 2 complaint to be “put on hold” while her solicitor and its legal team were negotiating a resolution to the permission for works issue. The resident asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 23 February 2023, and said that now the matter was “resolved” and an agreement had been reached she wanted it to progress with the stage 2 complaint. The resident raised a concern that the officer dealing with the leasehold issue as “unprofessional” and had told its staff to “ignore” her emails. The resident also stated that an email she had seen was “mocking” her in reference to her potentially reporting concerns to the local MP.
5. The resident purchased a lease of the area of the property she had completed works in, on 13 March 2023. The landlord granted retrospective permission for the works the resident had completed.
6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 13 April 2023 and did not uphold her complaint. It said it had investigated the staff member’s conduct and found “no evidence” her case was treated differently to another. It did not uphold her concerns that she was given “no offer of compromise”, as it had agreed to her purchasing the loft space. In relation to the staff member’s conduct, it had found they were acting in “the interest of safety”, and it was not their intention to upset her.
7. The resident contacted this Service on 17 May 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint, as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response, and the conduct of its staff member had impacted on her wellbeing. The resident expressed a concern that what she was told on the phone by the officer investigating the stage 2 complaint, differed from the content of its stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff

8. The landlord’s code of conduct for employees policy states that its staff members have a responsibility to provide a courteous, efficient, and impartial service to its residents.
9. The resident’s complaint centered around the conduct of its member of staff who oversaw the issue with permission for building works the resident had conduct. That the resident did not have permission to do the works before they were undertaken is not disputed. That matter is resolved, and the resident has not asked us to consider the landlord’s handling of the issue itself. Therefore, our investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff member. We have included reference to the events related to the building works, where necessary, for context.
10. When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, in May 2023, she raised a concern that the conduct of the landlord’s staff member had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
11. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
12. The evidence shows that the resident felt that a member of the landlord’s staff acted unprofessionally and had “mock[ed]” her. This Service 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. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
13. As part of her complaint, the resident expressed a concern that the landlord’s member of staff was heavy handed in how they sought to complete a property inspection at short notice once aware building works had taken place. The evidence shows that the landlord did seek to inspect at short notice, and explained it was entitled to do so under the terms of the lease. While the resident’s concerns are noted, there is no evidence to suggest this was done in a heavy handed manner.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response, of April 2023, set out that its staff member was acting in the interests of safety. While the resident does not believe its actions were appropriate, that it used its stage 2 response to set out its position was reasonable. It sought to reassure the resident that it was not the staff members intention to upset her.
15. The resident also raised a concern that the staff member in question had told its other staff not to respond to her emails, in an internal email from May 2022, that she had seen. The landlord used its complaint response to set out its position in relation to this concern. The landlord used it stage 2 complaint response to give an explanation about the email in question. The evidence shows it investigated the resident’s concerns, and explained the comment in the email was to advise other staff members they were dealing with the case. The landlord set out its position and sought to reassure the resident that the staff member was not instructing others to ignore her. The landlord’s response to this concern was reasonable in the circumstances.
16. The stage 2 response was silent on the resident’s concerns about comments, in the same email as above, that referenced the resident reporting concerns to her local MP. The email, from May 2022 stated the resident had copied in numerous people and “most probably the MP”.
17. As outlined above, it is not for this Service to determine if this comment amounts to misconduct, or was inappropriate. However, that that the landlord did not address this specific concern in its stage 2 response was inappropriate. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a landlord must respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint in its response. That it did so was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter, and evidence the landlord did not fully apply the principles set out in the Code. The resident was inconvenienced by not getting an appropriate response to concerns she raised as part of her complaint.
18. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position in relation to the staff member and future contact with he resident. It set out that it could not prevent that member of staff having contact with her, as letters were often sent out in their name, as a head of department. While evidently disappointing for the resident, the landlord set out its position with clarity, and gave its reasons. Its approach in relation to the resident’s request was reasonable in the circumstances
19. When asking this Service to investigate her complaint, in May 2023, the resident expressed a concern that the landlord’s position, in relation to the alleged misconduct, differed in a phone call to the content of its stage 2 response. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments, we can only assess the landlord’s response based on the evidence we have available. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord gave contradictory information, in relation to the alleged misconduct, during the stage 2 complaint investigation.
20. The evidence shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff member, and took her concerns seriously. The evidence shows it put the allegations to the staff member, which was appropriate. The landlord sought to reassure the resident that its staff member was acting in line with its obligations as the freeholder of the building. It set out its position, and gave an appropriate explanation, in relation to most of the resident’s concerns. However, that it was silent on a specific concern was inappropriate. As such, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.

Orders

22. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failing identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £50 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenienced caused by its response to her concerns about the conduct of its staff.