Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Extracare Charitable Trust (202301221)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301221

The Extracare Charitable Trust

22 October 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 staff conduct.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom apartment in a retirement village. The tenancy agreement includes a fixed service charge for village amenities which includes staffing. The retirement village has on site facilities including a gym, which the resident could choose to opt in to for an additional charge. The landlord holds no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 17 November 2022, the resident said she went to an appointment for a gym induction but the staff member responsible for providing the induction was not there. The resident met the staff member elsewhere in the village and indicated that she was late for the appointment. A dispute arose between the resident and the staff member.
  3. On 20 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that she was distressed and upset by the language used towards her. She said that the staff member called her abusive in front of other residents and staff. She said that this made her feel bullied and belittled and she no longer felt comfortable going into public spaces in the building. On 21 November 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
  4. On 8 February 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised to the resident for the significant distress caused. It confirmed that an investigation had taken place, and it identified actions to be completed. It said that it had hoped to meet her in person to apologise and discuss the issues. It said that it would be happy to do so in the future.
  5. On 11 April 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy that the landlord had not provided a stage 1 complaint response before 5 December 2022. She was unhappy that the complaint handler spoke to her about the complaint in the reception area where others could hear. She said that none of the elements of the complaint had been addressed. She asked about the witnesses to the incident, what actions had been taken with the staff member, and what internal procedures and framework would be put in place as a result of the complaint.
  6. On 23 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the sparse stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it had interviewed all staff concerned, obtained a witness statement from another resident, interviewed the resident, and was sourcing training on conflict resolution and de-escalation for its staff. It would not provide details of the witness due to confidentiality.
  7. It apologised for the delay in providing a stage 1 complaint response and feedback had been provided to the complaint handler. It advised that the complaint handler said she spoke to her in the reception area to offer an appointment to discuss the complaint in private, however, it acknowledged that this conversation could have taken place in a private space. It apologised for the distress caused and signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
  8. When the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman, she advised that she remained nervous, distressed, and no longer uses the reception area. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the staff member involved in the incident to apologise to her and a note put on her employment history that a complaint had been made against her.

Events after the internal complaint process 

  1. On 18 March 2024, the landlord reviewed its complaint handling, acknowledged service failures, and offered compensation of £100 to the resident to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience caused. 

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to note on the individual staff member’s employment history that a complaint had been made against her. The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with individual members of staff’s disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.h of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issue.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident believes that the conduct of the member of staff, during the meeting on 17 November 2022, was inappropriate. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s assessment of the events, the Ombudsman cannot decide on the nature or intent of the member of staff’s actions. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.
  2. When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated remedies would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. We cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members, or order remedies from individual staff such as personal apologies.

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

  1. When a resident reports poor staff conduct, the landlord should investigate the residents claims objectively and provide the resident with its findings in a timely manner.
  2. It is evident that the landlord conducted a reasonable and proportionate investigation into the issue. A housing officer not involved in the incident interviewed the resident, it obtained a witness statement from another resident, and it interviewed staff involved in the incident. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take in its investigation. As a result of the investigation, it decided to provide its staff with training in conflict resolution and de-escalation. This was an appropriate measure for the landlord to take when it identified a failure.
  3. The landlord attempted to provide feedback of the investigation face to face with the resident. When it could not, it wrote to her and apologised for the significant distress caused. It said that an investigation had taken place and actions would be addressed. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, it should have been more specific in what investigation had taken place and what actions it intended to take to address the issue. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that the landlord offered a further “face to face” meeting to apologise and discuss the issue.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it should have provided more details about how it conducted the investigation and the actions it would take to put things right. It provided details of how it investigated the issue and confirmed that it would carry out staff training as a result of the investigation. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
  5. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress, in the form of an apology, with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. The evidence shows that it conducted a reasonable investigation into the issue, apologised to the resident, and took steps to reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. It is evident that the landlord was attempting to complete its investigation into the issue before it provided its stage 1 complaint response. Internal notes show that the reason for the complaint delay at stage 1 was the extended time to contact the resident in the first instance, the Christmas period, and not being able to contact the resident to provide feedback on the investigation. This was inappropriate and caused a delay of 44 working days to the resident receiving a stage 1 complaint response.
  3. The Code sets out that a stage 1 complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issues are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident. In this case, the landlord should have issued its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days advising that it was investigating the allegations and set a reasonable timeframe to provide the resident with an outcome of its investigation.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not detail how the resident could escalate her complaint. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 11 April 2023 as she remained unhappy with the complaint. We advised that she needed to obtain a stage 2 complaint response from the landlord. This failure caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident in escalating the complaint through the process. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident may not have received a stage 2 complaint response had she not sought advice from the Ombudsman. This was inappropriate and represents a service failure.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. It accepted that it did not confirm the complaint stage, it did not define the complaint or provide reasons for the decisions, it lacked details of what actions it intended to take to put things right and it did not provide details of how the resident could escalate the complaint. The landlord apologised to the resident and confirmed it had provided feedback to the complaint handler. While these were appropriate responses to put things right for the resident, it should have considered offering redress considering the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident in navigating its complaint process.
  6. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord reviewed its complaint handling after the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, and it considered an offer of redress. However, because its offer was after the complaint was duly made, reasonable redress is not an outcome that the Ombudsman could consider. This is because the landlord should have thoroughly reviewed its compensation at stage 2.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. While it acknowledged some failings in its complaint handling process, it failed to identify the time and trouble caused to the resident in escalating the complaint through its process. It also failed to make an offer of redress before the complaint was duly made. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
  8. It is acknowledged that the landlord has since carried out a review of the complaint handling in this case and demonstrated learning since the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman. As such, no learning orders have been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in the form of an apology, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily, resolves the complaint about the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. If it has already paid the resident £100 referred to in paragraph 11, this can be deducted from the amount.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.