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

The Havebury Housing Partnership (202301040)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301040

The Havebury Housing Partnership

4 February 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:
    1. Report of staff conduct, inappropriate behaviour and language by a technician that attended the property.
    2. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom flat, on an assured tenancy since May 2022. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 15 February 2023, a technician attended the property to put a camera in the downpipe to investigate a smell. The resident telephoned the landlord later that day to complain that the technician had commented that the bathroom smelt of urine, there was a yellow stain on the floor, and it needed a good clean. The complaint was formalised in writing the following day.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 22 February 2023. He said he had spoken to someone on the telephone and was told he would receive an acknowledgement email outlining the details of the complaint within 5 working days, but this had not happened. The landlord responded the same day and apologised that he had not been contacted. It said a case would be opened and an acknowledgement sent by 5pm that day.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 February 2023 and apologised it had not been in touch sooner. It noted he had made a second complaint and asked if he wanted the complaints combined. The resident confirmed he wanted them investigated separately and said he was unhappy with the time taken to deal with the original complaint. This was noted by the landlord and it provided details of who would be investigating matters.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 13 March 2023 it said a manager at the company the work was outsourced to had spoken with the technician and taken “appropriate action”. They had also been reminded of the landlord’s service standards and behaviours. The landlord apologised that it had impacted him in the way it did and that the complaint was not picked up in the time frame set. It made no excuse for missing the deadline but had made changes to its processes so it would make contact within 5 days going forward. It would also be carrying out companywide customer service training with all staff and contractors and analysing lessons learnt from complaints to benefit tenants moving forward.
  6. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 the same day. He said he had hoped for a direct apology from the technician and was unhappy at not being offered compensation for the delay in addressing his complaint.
  7. A stage 2 response was issued on 6 April 2023 which explained any human resources investigation could not be shared but the technician did not recall using the language alleged in the complaint. The landlord said it was unable to prove or disprove what was said as there was no evidence. It noted the resident wanted the technician to apologise personally but it did not have the authority to enforce that. It recognised the delay in its stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation for the service failure and apologised that it did not meet the standard for this case.
  8. The resident accepted the offer of compensation the same day, but said he wanted the complaint escalated to this Service. The landlord then confirmed this in writing.

Assessment and findings

Staff conduct, inappropriate behaviour and language by a technician

  1. It is not our role to comment on the technician’s behaviour or form a view on what happened at the visit. Instead, it is to consider how the landlord dealt with the matter when the resident reported his concern.
  2. The technician worked for a third party company, sent on behalf of the landlord. It is clear from the correspondence that the resident was very upset at what happened, and the landlord did take his concerns seriously. It spoke with the resident and listened to why he was unhappy. It then liaised with the third party company, which spoke with the technician about what happened. The technician was reminded of the landlord’s service standards and behaviours when working in tenants’ homes and it explained the third party had taken “appropriate action”. It also apologised for how the resident had been impacted by what happened.
  3. The landlord was right to explain that any action it or the third party took in relation to the technician could not be shared as it would be confidential. The landlord could not simply accept one party’s word over another and it was not in a position to say for certain what happened at the visit, due to a lack of supporting evidence. It also could not force the technician to apologise directly to the resident.
  4. The landlord did, however, speak with the resident about his concerns and recognise that he was clearly upset by what the technician said. It then carried out an investigation in to what happened and explained its position. While we appreciate the strength of feeling the resident has over what happened, we are satisfied the landlord took reasonable steps to address the matter. Therefore, there was no maladministration and no further action is needed.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. However, it took 18 working days, so it failed to comply with its obligations. The landlord did recognise that it should have acknowledged the complaint in 5 working days and apologised for that, which was appropriate. However it could have done more to address the delay at stage 1 in its response and consider whether compensation should have been offered.
  2. After the complaint was escalated the landlord ensured its stage 2 response was sent within the timescales set out in the complaints policy. It also apologised to the resident again and, having recognised there was a failure in its service, offered £50 compensation.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that £50 is a reasonable remedy to recognise when there has been poor service that had a mild impact, such as disappointment and delays getting the matter resolved. That is the case here. The complaint investigation was only delayed by a few days causing minor inconvenience, so the offer was not only in line with the landlord’s guidance, but also our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord also made changes to its processes and arranged internal training with staff in order to try and prevent issues in the future. This demonstrates that it learned from the complaint, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
  4. Taking all that in to account, we find that the landlord has made an offer which is reasonable and proportionate to resolve this part of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of staff conduct, inappropriate behaviour and language by the technician.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the formal complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £50 compensation offered in April 2023 (if it has not already), as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.