East End Homes Limited (202320504)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320504

East End Homes Limited

3 March 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

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

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. This is a joint tenancy in the names of the resident and her husband. The property is a 2-bed maisonette on the ground floor. Both the resident and her husband have medical conditions. Both reported issues to the landlord. As such, this report references ‘the resident’ but refers to actions of both joint tenants.
The resident complained to the landlord on 29 June 2023. She said she was unhappy with receiving a letter which “accused” her husband of vandalising a tree. She added the landlord had threatened to “take away” her disabled parking bay. In relation to the tree, the resident said it had told her to cut branches herself, in response to her concerns that they were a hazard during windy weather. She also said her housing officer (HO) “harassed” her and had a “discriminatory” attitude towards her. The resident listed instances on which she believed she had been harassed to support her comments. She added the landlord refused access for her to visit the housing centre in person. She asked for another staff member as her point of contact rather than contacting her HO.
On 3 July 2023, the resident added further points to her complaint. She said the landlord had previously ignored her request to not speak with her HO. She felt the HO was “racist”, “discriminatory”, and mismanaged repair issues. She added that other residents received a different quality of service than she did.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 July 2023. It said:
1. The resident had reported further concerns related to the complaint on 17 July 2023. This caused delays in its response.
2. The HO received evidence that her husband damaged the tree. It was right to recharge her for the costs caused by this. It had no record of giving her permission to cut the tree.
3. It was right to mention removing the parking bay due to a risk of further damage caused to her car by the trees. This included issues with leaves, sap, insects, and bird droppings.
4. It had not banned her from accessing its local housing centre. It found no evidence of denying access to her.
5. It did not accept its HO had been racist. It explained it had investigated each example the resident had referred to and it had found the HO’s actions to be appropriate. It confirmed it had not found evidence of racism or discrimination in its handling of her tenancy.
6. The resident made excessive levels of contact. It said if this did not change, it would need to introduce measures to reduce this. It asked her to make reasonable contact going forward.
On 24 July 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She said it should not recharge her as it had failed to maintain the trees itself. She added it should pay for the damage caused to her car by the tree sap. In relation to levels of contact, the resident said the landlord had not notified her that she could not call it anymore. She felt this was discrimination because her husband had a sight impairment and relied on calls. She believed its complaint investigation was “unfair, prejudiced and lacked understanding of why she made repeated contact.” She attached images of her kitchen, stating there was damp and mould which her HO had not resolved.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 September 2023. It said:
1. It re-investigated whether it gave verbal permission to cut the tree. It had no evidence to show that it said this. It also found no evidence of allowing other residents to do this either.
2. Its contractor had provided a statement confirming they saw her husband cut the tree and had spoken to him. Her husband had also accepted he had cut the tree during a call to discuss the complaint.
3. The recharge covered its costs of clearing the tree branches from the bin chamber.
4. It had not placed restrictions on how she could make contact. It had instead asked her to avoid making “excessive” calls. The HO followed the correct procedures by doing so.
5. Multiple staff members had inspected her property and had not found damp and mould present. The photos of her kitchen did not show any such issues.
6. It found no evidence of the HO acting inappropriately towards her.
The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision about the conduct of the HO. The complaint became one we could investigate on 25 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

We cannot make a legal finding of discrimination. The courts are best placed to assess whether this occurred. If the resident believes the landlord has unlawfully discriminated or harassed her, she can seek legal advice about this. We will instead consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and how it responded to her concerns.
The resident has concerns with her landlord which are separate to this complaint. This includes a previous disrepair claim, an incident at its local housing office and actions taken under its unacceptable behaviour policy. For fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and try to put things right. The resident may raise a new complaint to the landlord for any new matters which have occurred since the final complaint response, or not covered by this investigation, if needed.

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

On 28 June 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had witnessed her husband “vandalising” one of its trees. It said if it happened again, it would remove her disabled parking bay. It told her to report any future maintenance issues so it could resolve this instead. It attached an invoice for her to pay £50 for the cost of removing the branches from the bin chamber. It recharged this to her as it had already removed the branches.
Within the letter, the landlord did not explain why it would consider removing the resident’s parking bay. As a result, the resident felt that this was a threat. In its complaint response, the landlord said it may remove the bay if the tree posed a risk of further damage to her car. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. However, explaining this sooner would have prevented any confusion over why it mentioned this within its letter. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s communication.
Following concerns about discrimination and harassment by staff, we expect landlords to conduct a fair and objective investigation. It should take appropriate action where necessary and clearly relay its findings to the resident.
The resident complained about the conduct of the HO. This included having a “discriminatory” attitude, being “narcissistic” and “controlling”, and targeting her for things others are allowed to do. She said it had allowed other neighbours to cut the tree and mentioned a difference in their race. She later added the HO was racist and did not manage her repairs properly.
The available evidence shows the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns. It gave them reasonable consideration and responded appropriately. It investigated the matter with the HO and considered its own policies and procedures in assessing the HO’s conduct. We have seen no evidence to show that its response to the resident’s reports was inappropriate.
The landlord explained its findings to the resident in both its initial complaint response and during a call to discuss the complaint. This was appropriate, and good customer service, to show how it had investigated her concerns. It found:
1. The HO had raised repairs and chased these appropriately.
2. Other staff members had also found no evidence of damp within the property. It therefore did not need to replace her kitchen.
3. The HO had agreed to complete a repair to an internal lock despite this being the resident’s responsibility.
4. The HO responded to her emails and calls within its published service standards. This was to acknowledge or respond to written contact within 3 working days.
5. There was no evidence of racism or discrimination in the management of the resident’s tenancy.
The landlord’s response was clear and proportionate in response to the resident’s concerns. It was right for it to detail the ways her HO followed its policies and procedures and sometimes went beyond this. This showed it had considered these issues appropriately.
Additionally, the landlord explained that recharging for the works would be the same action for all residents, not just her. This was correct and in line with the tenancy agreement which sets out that the landlord will charge residents for the cost of clearing rubbish away. By explaining this, it offered reassurance that it had not treated her differently.
The resident said the landlord had banned her from accessing the local housing centre in person. The landlord investigated this appropriately and explained that it had no evidence of denying her access. However, it noted high levels of contact from the resident. It therefore asked her to reduce this and to consider making reasonable contact going forward. This was fair as the landlord, and her HO, must balance its resources between herself and other residents. We have not seen evidence to suggest the landlord’s responses to her contacts were unreasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint and said the landlord should not recharge her. The landlord’s response included a witness statement provided by its contractor who saw her husband cutting the tree. This was appropriate to show how it had concluded this. The resident also raised other concerns which the landlord responded appropriately to. This included that:
1. It had investigated and found it had not given her verbal permission to cut the tree. It had also not given other residents permission to cut trees either.
2. It had followed its procedures in recharging her for the cost to clear the bin chamber.
3. While tree sap can cause a nuisance, it has benefits to trapping dust and harmful particles.
4. It reiterated that it had not placed restrictions on how she could contact the landlord. It had instead asked her to consider only making reasonable contact and not excessive phone calls.
5. It also reiterated that multiple staff members had inspected her home and not found any damp and mould. It was therefore not a decision solely made by the HO.
6. It found no evidence of the HO discriminating against the resident. It confirmed its investigation had found the HO acted appropriately.
The resident asked the landlord for another staff member to contact rather than her HO. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that the HO was the allocated officer for her building. As such, her HO would respond or contact her when needed. Landlords can have specific officers for blocks or estates as this allows for appropriate management of any issues. It was therefore reasonable for the HO to remain in place, especially given its finding that the HO had acted appropriately.
Overall, the landlord’s response in investigating the staff member’s conduct was reasonable and fair. It investigated the issues proportionately and clearly explained its findings. It therefore showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and considered it appropriately.

The associated complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it would respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. At stage 2, it would hold a review panel and “consider the complaint” within 20 working days. Residents could attend the review panel if they wished to. It would then provide its decision within 10 working days of the date of the meeting.
The landlord took 15 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This was 5 days over the timescales set out within its policy. Its response noted that 2 calls from the resident related to the complaint caused the delay. While this may have contributed to its delayed response, the landlord should reasonably have confirmed that it would not be responding in accordance with policy timescales and provided a revised date of response. This was a shortcoming in its complaint handling. However, the landlord remained in regular contact with the resident throughout the complaint which would have likely mitigated the impact of this.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 July 2023. It said it would contact her with a date for the review meeting. This was appropriate as its policy allowed her to attend this if she wished. She later chose not to attend the meeting.
The landlord held the panel on 11 August 2023. It needed further information from other departments to be able to assess the complaint. It received this on 24 August 2023. It later provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 4 September 2023.
It took the landlord a further 16 working days to provide the final response to the resident after the panel hearing. While this was 6 working days beyond its timescale, overall, it took 30 working days to respond to her complaint. Therefore its response was in line with the timescales set out in its policy.
As part of the resident’s complaint escalation request, she asked for the landlord to pay for damages caused to her car by the tree sap. There is no evidence available to show she had reported this issue previously. However, it was a shortcoming that it did not provide details of how to submit a liability claim to its insurers. This would have been a proportionate step to allow an independent investigation into her claim.
We note that the landlord’s policy was not in line with the Code at the time of the complaint. This was because the Code stated landlords should provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request. However, this was not a failing as it was not statutory for landlords to meet the requirements of the Code at this time. This has since changed, and the landlord has revised its complaint policy to meet the requirements of the new Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider providing the resident with details of how to make a liability claim to its insurers for the reported damage to her car.