Luton Borough Council (202229082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229082

Luton Borough Council

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of:
1. A broken window.
2. Staff conduct.
The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council housing provider.
The resident has made previous complaints about staff conduct and her view that the landlord’s repair service has a “misogynistic culture”. The landlord has responded through its internal complaint process.
The resident raised a window repair on 7 October 2022 to the landlord and asked if it could be a morning appointment. The landlord added a note to the planning team asking for a morning appointment. The appointment was booked for an afternoon. The note about a morning appointment was not removed.
The landlord arrived for the appointment in the morning and the resident was sleeping after working a night shift. There was therefore no access, and the job was cancelled.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She was frustrated that the landlord turned up at the wrong time and she had to book a new appointment. The landlord agreed to attend 2 days later, on a weekend. It agreed to a small timeframe for arrival between 8am-8.15am. The landlord did not attend at the agreed time and the resident asked them not to attend as she needed to sleep after her work shift. The landlord passed this message to the operative, but he knocked anyway as he did not want the resident to think he had not attended.
The repair was raised again, booked, and completed on 24 October 2022.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response apologised that it attended at the wrong time. It said it had investigated, that it was an error and there was no malice intended. The response said it had tried to complete 2 days later but the operative was refused entry. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. She said the response did not cover all her complaint, including:
1. Her question of why the window repair job completed on the system when it was not actually completed
2. Not addressing the full facts of 15 October 2022 (the second visit to repair the window)
3. Her question of why the landlord instructed the call centre to only put her calls through to the repairs team
The landlord spoke to the resident on the day it sent the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s complaint response said that it had already responded to her complaint about misogyny in September 2022 and referred her to the landlord’s actions detailed in the previous response. It acknowledged it missed the chance to put things right by missing the 15 October 2022 timeframe. The landlord told the resident that the additional points would be responded to in a further response and that she could expect that in the next week.
The further stage 2 complaint response was received on 16 December 2022, 7 days after the first one. It explained that repair jobs that are no access are always completed on the system and a new job is raised. It apologised that the resident could not speak to who she wanted but found no evidence of the landlord instructing that her calls should go directly to the repairs service team. The landlord apologised again and suggested the resident could use the repair portal if she did not want to speak to anyone in the repairs team.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and in March 2023 asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained to the landlord about institutionalised misogyny in the repairs service in 2018 and June 2022. This investigation will include the landlord’s stage 2 response from 16 September 2022. The landlord referred to this response in its stage 2 response of 9 December 2022. It is fair to both parties that the Ombudsman considers this response as the landlord referred to it in answering the resident’s complaint. It is within the recommended timeframe for consideration, and it is relevant to the complaint. The complaint from 2018 will not be considered due to the age of the complaint.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident’s feelings on the situation were based on her own experiences. While the resident’s experiences cannot be discounted, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to complaints about misogyny and staff conduct rather than make a finding as to whether it happened or not.
In this report the landlord will be referred to as the landlord, unless it is necessary and relevant to indicate that a specific issue or interaction concerned the landlord’s repairs service.

The landlord’s handling of the report about the broken window

The resident reported her broken window to the landlord on 7 October 2022. One of the upstairs windows was not shutting. The landlord’s initial response was correct. It classified the repair as a routine repair. The target for completion was 30 working days as per the landlord’s repairs and servicing information pages on its website. The landlord completed the repair on 24 October 2022, 12 working days after it was reported. The landlord acted appropriately.
That the repair was completed in line with its timescales was not in dispute. The resident’s complaint was about the actions of the landlord throughout the repair.
The resident had requested a morning appointment, and the landlord added a note to the repair that said morning appointment if possible. This was for the planning team to see when scheduling in the appointment. The landlord was trying to achieve a morning appointment for her. Whether the planning team saw the note or not is unknown, but the appointment was scheduled for the afternoon of 13 October 2022. The resident accepted this and decided to sleep as normal after her nightshift and set an alarm to wake her up for the afternoon appointment. It was reasonable that the landlord tried to make a morning appointment by adding a note to the system for the planning team to see. It was customer focused.
Once the appointment was booked the note was not removed. This resulted in the landlord attending 2 hours earlier than the appointment was scheduled for. The resident was sleeping so did not answer the door. The job was logged as no access and completed off the system. In the evidence provided as part of this investigation, the landlord has demonstrated an awareness of the resident’s job and that she worked shifts so may often be sleeping in the day. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not remove or amend the note once the appointment was booked for the afternoon. The note caused confusion and the landlord’s operative thought he could arrive early for the appointment.
The landlord acknowledged its error and apologised to the resident. It agreed to attend to the window repair at the weekend and agreed a small timeframe for arrival of 8am-8:15am. The landlord acted reasonably. It attempted to put things right and admitted it had got things wrong. It was solution focused.
However, the landlord acted unreasonably in failing to communicate with the resident that although it would endeavour to attend at the appointed time, this was still subject to change. For example, because of emergency repairs or traffic delays. The landlord also failed to explain that due to the time of day at the point of deciding the timeframe, the relevant people might not get the message about the 8am-8:15am timeframe. The landlord set the resident’s expectations that it would attend between 8am-8:15am.
On 15 October 2022 the landlord missed the timeframe because the relevant people had not got the message. The resident called the landlord and told them not to attend now as it was too late. The landlord’s operative got this message, but he attended anyway, and the resident refused him access. The landlord acted unreasonably by attending when asked not to. It was not an emergency repair, and it was reasonable of the resident to ask the landlord not to attend as it had missed the timeframe and she needed to sleep.
When there are admitted failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. It will consider if the failing led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2022, the landlord acknowledged its error on the initial appointment of 13 October 2022. It said it had spoken to its staff about the importance of always being thorough to prevent errors like the one that occurred. This was a reasonable response from the landlord. It apologised and took some learning from the incident. It also tried to reassure the resident that it was a simple error and there was no malice towards her intended. It was customer focused.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered a further apology and explanation that the operative did not get the message about the 8am-8:15 timeframe. It told the resident that being able to flag and prioritise cases like hers would form part of the new IT system and training. The landlord acted reasonably by offering an apology, and explaining how it would learn from the incident. It was honest and solution driven.
Neither complaint response acknowledged or apologised for the landlord’s operative knocking at the door when he was told not to. A thorough investigation at stage 2 of the complaint process would have seen the evidence that the resident had called and that the message not to knock had been passed to the operative. The landlord acted unreasonably, it should have acknowledged the failing, apologised, and let the resident know how it would ensure it would not happen again.
There was no offer of financial redress. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to offer payments between £50 to £250 for failings that are of a short duration that may cause distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble for the resident. The resident’s sleep was impacted by the landlord’s actions. She had to make numerous calls to the landlord. The repair date was changed 3 times due to the landlord’s failings. An offer of £100 would have been appropriate.
In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a broken window. For the most part the landlord acknowledged its failings and attempted to put them right. However, it did not acknowledge that it should not have knocked on the resident’s door after she asked that its operative no longer attend, and it did not offer a financial remedy. An order in relation to this has been made below.

Staff conduct

The landlord, as a public authority, has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the act. It must also have due regard for the need to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between those who share and those who do not share a protected characteristic. The tenant handbook tells us that a resident can expect landlord staff to carry out their work fairly and without discrimination.
The resident complained that there were no managers available to speak to and that she did not want to speak to the repairs service staff. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response confirmed there had been no instruction internally that she could only speak to 1 manager. It went on to explain that while managers were not always available, any request to speak to a named manager would be forwarded to them to respond as soon as possible. It may have been useful for the landlord to provide the resident with any customer service timeframes for callbacks. However, the landlord acted reasonably in managing the resident’s expectations about speaking to a manager.
In her stage 2 escalation request on 3 November 2022, the resident asked for a clearer explanation on the point that she thought the landlord had instructed the call handlers to only put her calls through to the repairs service staff and not managers. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 December 2022 advised it had investigated and found no evidence to support that theory. However, it did acknowledge that the resident had been put through to the repairs service repeatedly, even when she made it clear she did not want to speak to them. It offered the link for reporting repairs online if the resident did not feel comfortable speaking to the repairs service on the phone. This was a reasonable response. It attempted to find a practical solution to the resident’s issue. It could have been an opportunity for the landlord to establish why the resident did not want to speak to the repairs service and potentially facilitate a resolution to the underlying issue for the resident. It missed an opportunity to put things right.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she still does not like speaking to the repairs service and has no communication agreement in place to raise repairs via an alternative telephone route. She would use the repairs portal but says it does not work. The Ombudsman has therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to call the resident to investigate her repairs portal and ensure it works for her. The landlord should also specify to the resident when the portal may not be appropriate, such as for logging an emergency repair.
The landlord spoke to the resident before sending out its stage 2 complaint response. The resident added to the complaint her concerns about what she felt was institutional misogyny in the repairs service and the poor treatment of residents as a result. The subsequent stage 2 complaint response referred the resident to the outcome of the previous stage 2 complaint of 16 September 2022. It said the actions from that response were still being implemented. It was reasonable that the landlord referred to the previous complaint. Less than 3 months had passed since the resident complained about staff conduct.
As the landlord had referred to the previous complaint from September 2022, it was providing the outcome and actions from that complaint as its response for the complaint in question. For that reason, those actions become part of the complaint that the Ombudsman may investigate. It was both relevant and within the timescales for consideration.
The landlord’s previous stage 2 response of 16 September 2022 contained the following information in relation to staff conduct:
1. It advised that the specific incident mentioned would be managed through the landlord’s policy for managing staff behaviour. The landlord apologised.
2. It confirmed that the landlord had provided a female member of staff to attend with the male operative to repair the boiler.
3. It confirmed that that landlord had sought advice from the council’s social justice service. It said it recognised its duty under the Equality Act 2010.
4. That the Chief Executive Officer had put in motion for all staff to undertake equality and diversity training and unconscious bias training by the end of the year.
5. That all repairs service staff would undertake customer service training.
The landlord’s response was reasonable. It had listened to the resident and understood the real concern that she had. It put in place actions to resolve the immediate issue, the repair, and longer-term solutions to the concern of misogyny. The landlord went further than the stage 1 response had in seeking advice from the social justice service. It invested in arranging face to face training for its staff. The landlord was customer focused and solution driven. It did what it could within its powers to address the general but strong concerns the resident had.
The landlord has updated the Ombudsman on its position in respect of the actions from the complaint response of 16 September 2022. In-person equality, diversity and inclusion training was completed across the landlord’s housing directorate (including the repairs service) from August to December 2023. The repairs service completion rate was 95%. It is reviewed every 3 months to capture new starters and those who haven’t attended. There is mandatory online unconscious bias training for all staff.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct. It was reasonable that the landlord referred the resident to the previous complaint as it was less than 3 months since that response. Furthermore, the actions within that were reasonable in light of the concerns raised and were solution driven.

Associated complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaints process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord, except for one omission, handled the complaint in line with its complaints policy and its responses adhered to the complaint handling code (the Code).
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1 the complaint must be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 15 working days. At stage 2 it must be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 25 working days.
The resident called her landlord to complain about the window repair on 13 October 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge her complaint within 3 working days. This was not appropriate. The resident may not have understood what was going to happen with her complaint and did not know when to expect a full response.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was completed on 1 November 2022, 13 working days after the complaint was made. This was in keeping with the landlord’s procedure and therefore the landlord acted appropriately.
The landlord’s stage 1 response contained all the relevant information outlined in paragraph 5.8 of the Code:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The complaint definition.
3. The decision on the complaint.
4. The reasons for any decision made.
5. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. Details of any outstanding actions.
7. Details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 November 2022 and the landlord acknowledged this on 4 November 2022. It sent its stage 2 complaint response on 9 December 2022, 25 working days from the escalation date. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the escalation and responding in line with its complaint’s procedure.
Paragraph 5.10 of the Code tells us that the landlord must set out its understanding of the issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect is unclear the resident must be asked for clarification. In its stage 2 complaint response of 9 December 2022 the landlord apologised for not calling the resident sooner. It acknowledged that it would have been helpful to clarify the additional points the resident made in her escalation request. It was reasonable of the landlord to apologise. It recognised it had made a mistake, was honest and apologised. It sought to put things right.
The landlord sent a follow up stage 2 response on 16 December 2022 to answer some additional points the resident had raised through the stage 2 process. The landlord had let the resident know it was doing this and had provided a timeframe in the first stage 2 response. The landlord acted reasonably. It was honest that it needed more time to answer fully and then kept to the timescale it gave.
The landlord agreed to investigate complaints that were not mentioned as part of the original complaint. The main point being the resident’s complaint about staff conduct and misogynistic attitudes she felt the landlord’s repair service displayed. It was reasonable of the landlord to allow this. It was customer focused and the complaint was relevant to the original complaint. The landlord showed it listened to the resident about her general dissatisfaction.
However, it may have been more appropriate for the landlord to consider raising a new complaint. It could then have considered whether it was a repeat complaint (as the resident had made the same complaint in August 2022). The landlord could have managed the resident’s expectations around what it could investigate and what it had already considered previously. Paragraph 1.8 of the Code allows for a complaint to be excluded if it has previously been considered under the landlord’s complaint policy.
In summary, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Except for not acknowledging the stage 1 complaint, the landlord handled its complaint in line with its complaints procedure and its complaint responses adhered to the Code. It acted reasonably in responding to new points the resident made when it could have excluded one of them. It was customer focused and wanted to provide a detailed response to the resident.
Since this complaint, the landlord has updated its information on its website. It has advised its residents that it will follow the new 2024 complaint handling code timescales for all housing related complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a broken window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s report of a broken window.
This must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.

Recommendation

The landlord to contact the resident as soon as possible to discuss the repairs portal and assist the resident in using it successfully.