ForHousing Limited (202327303)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327303

ForHousing Limited

10 July 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. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat.
4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 24 July 2023. He was unhappy with the way a member of the landlord’s staff had handled a web chat on the same day. He said that the staff member had misidentified repairs reported at the resident’s property, and was unhappy the staff member was handling 3 of the chats at the same time.
5. On 2 August 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to add to his complaint. He was dissatisfied about a separate web chat handled by a different member of staff on 2 August 2023. The resident had enquired about repairs and why his neighbour had a repair completed before him. He was unhappy as he did not believe the member of staff had been very helpful.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2023. It said it:
   1. Had found that there were errors in the webchat of 24 July 2023. It had provided coaching to the member of staff in response to the resident’s complaint.
   2. Believed that the member of staff who handled the webchat on 2 August 2023 had acted appropriately and in line with its processes.
   3. Sometimes asked staff to handle more than 1 chat in busy periods when there was a lengthy wait time. It had hired more staff to reduce this wait time.
   4. Would raise any outstanding repairs if the resident let it know about a relevant repair.
7. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 12 September 2023. He said he was unhappy as he didn’t think the landlord had read the webchats. He wanted to know why his next-door neighbour had repairs completed before him.
8. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint escalation on 15 September 2023 and asked the resident for the reason he was escalating the complaint. The resident responded on 20 September 2023 explaining that he had originally contacted the landlord about a leak that had caused mould and he was waiting for someone to deal with that. He said he was unhappy about the 2 members of staff that he spoke to on the web chat service on 24 July 2023 and 2 August 2023. He didn’t believe that the member of staff who had dealt with the stage 1 complaint had read the web chats properly. He also was dissatisfied that his neighbour had a repair completed before him.
9. On 13 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it:
   1. Understood that the resident’s complaint was that he was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response.
   2. Had provided training to both members of staff involved.
   3. Realised that there was no apology in the stage 1 response and apologised to the resident for the frustration that was caused to him.
   4. Would give the resident £100 compensation for this frustration.
   5. Had noted that there were outstanding repairs at his property. It committed to sending a full schedule of works so the resident was aware of all appointments.
10. The resident referred his complaint to us on 7 November 2023 as he remained unhappy with the way that the landlord had responded to his complaint. In a conversation with us on 19 June 2023, he has said that he did not want an apology but that he would like to see the landlord demonstrate learning if mistakes are identified in this investigation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

11. The resident originally contacted the landlord via its webchat service to chase his reports of damp, mould and a leak at the property. He has previously had a complaint determined by us on 12 October 2023 (Complaint 202118101) about leaks and has mentioned ongoing leaks at the property to this service. The resident’s complaint to the landlord, and the complaint the landlord dealt with, was about staff conduct. Therefore, this is the complaint that we have considered in this investigation. If the resident has ongoing issues with leaks, he should consider raising this as a new complaint with the landlord.

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

12. It is not our role to determine how a landlord should handle issues with specific staff members, such as disciplinary actions. When investigating a complaint about a landlord, we look at the landlord’s overall response. We only assess individual actions if they were done on behalf of the landlord. If a staff member’s actions cause a service failure, any decisions or recommendations we make will be directed at the landlord, not the individual.
13. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction in relation to 2 members of the landlord’s staff who handled his webchats. We will not form a view on whether the staff members’ actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, our role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. The landlord does not have any policies or procedures for complaints about staff conduct. When there are no policies or procedures, we make an assessment based on what is reasonable in the circumstances.
14. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. The landlord should generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. In conducting our investigations, we rely on the evidence supplied to us to determine what events took place and to reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
15. To investigate this matter, the landlord should have looked at the webchats and spoken to the members of staff concerned. It is reasonable to conclude that the webchats were looked at as both of the landlord’s complaint responses refer to them and internal communications show them being shared for the purpose of the complaint investigation. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord.
16. There is no direct record of the landlord of speaking to the members of staff about the complaints. However, an internal email sent on 9 October 2023 provided by the landlord, references these conversations taking place. It is therefore reasonable to say that the landlord did speak to both members of staff about the complaint, but did not record these conversations. Interviewing the staff involved in the complaint is a reasonable action from the landlord and a step we would expect to take place. However, it is a record keeping failure that the landlord did not document these conversations given they were subject to a complaint.
17. As part of its stage 2 response on 13 October 2023, the landlord said that it provided training to both members of staff. The landlord described the actions it had taken with the 2 members of staff in an internal communication on 9 October 2023. The member of staff who handled the webchat on 24 July 2023 was provided with coaching. The member of staff who handled the webchat on 2 August 2023 was given guidance on discussing works taking place at other properties. The landlord’s approach was reasonable here. It acted on the result of its investigation to prevent further errors from happening in the future. However, given both of these actions took place took place because of a complaint it is a record keeping failure that neither of these actions were formally recorded by the landlord.
18. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. It looked into the complaints made by the resident and took action which was within the range of reasonable responses available to it. The resident was caused frustration by the advice offered on the webchats. However, there is no evidence the way the webchats were dealt with affected the resident beyond this. The landlord provided £100 compensation for the frustration caused. We find this level of compensation to be reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.
19. However, we do find service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. This is because of its record keeping. The landlord’s actions were not documented within its systems. We would issue an order for learning, but we have evidence that the landlord has since introduced training logs to document actions addressed as training requirements. If training logs were used in this situation, much of the record keeping failures would have been avoided.

Complaint Handling

20. The landlord’s Complaint’s Policy says that a complaint at either stage 1 or stage 2 should be acknowledged within 5 working days. A stage 1 complaint response should be sent to a resident 10 working days from the acknowledgement. A stage 2 complaint response should be sent to a resident within 20 working days of the resident’s request for the complaint to be escalated. These timescales align with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
21. The Code says that if a resident raises additional complaints, they should be incorporated into the landlord’s stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued. If the stage 1 response has been issued and the additional complaint is unrelated to the issues being investigated, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint. The landlords Complaints Policy also includes this.
22. The stage 1 complaint response was acknowledged in 4 working days, this is in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures. The stage 1 complaint response was sent within 18 working days, this was a failure from the landlord as it was not in line with its policies and procedures.
23. The landlord did apologise for the delay, but in an email that the stage 1 response was attached to. This does not adequately acknowledge the failure to adhere to its own policies or the Code. It would be reasonable for this apology to be included in its stage 1 response.
24. The resident’s request for his complaint to be escalated was acknowledged within 3 working days, which is in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code. The stage 2 response was sent in 23 working days, this was a failure from the landlord as it does not follow the timeframe for sending a stage 2 response set out in its own policies or the Code.
25. In the webchat on 2 August 2023 the resident said he was unhappy that his neighbour had a repair completed before him. The resident mentioned this again on 12 September 2023 and also on 20 September 2023, when the landlord had asked him for more information on the escalation of his complaint. The landlord should have addressed this element of the resident’s complaint.
26. The resident raised this before the stage 1 response was issued and mentioned it twice again after. We do not believe that looking into this issue would have delayed the landlord’s response as it was linked to the elements being investigated. If the landlord believes that it would have delayed its response, then it should have explained this to the resident and processed a new complaint. It was a failure of the landlord to follow its own policy and the Code that it did not.
27. The landlord did not suitably acknowledge the delays in its complaint responses and did not offer the resident any redress for them. It also did not appropriately address all the issues raised by the resident. However, the delays did not have a significant impact on the resident and while he was frustrated at not being informed about why his neighbour had a repair completed before him, the impact of this was minor. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Considering our guidance on remedies, a reasonable amount of compensation is £80. This suitably acknowledges the distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident by the delays and missed complaint point.
28. We have not ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident, as he has specifically said this is not something that he would like. We have also not ordered the landlord to take any action in relation to the missed complaint point, regarding repairs at the neighbours property. This is because we would not expect a landlord to provide an update on a separate individual’s repairs to someone who was not involved in the repair. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain this directly to the resident and it should ensure in future to address all of the complaint points raised by a resident.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Paid the resident £100 for its handling of handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
    2. Paid the resident £80 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. This is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord for this element of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint.
    4. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.