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

West Kent Housing Association (202307022)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307022

West Kent Housing Association

30 August 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 handling of:
    1. A staff member’s conduct during a telephone call with the resident.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow and the tenancy commenced in May 2022.
  2. The neighbour involved in the incident is not a tenant of the landlord.

Landlord obligations

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states:
    1. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    2. It will investigate using information stored across its systems, liaise with relevant staff members and contractors as appropriate, obtain specialist advice if needed and arrange for visits or inspections to take place to gather evidence.

Scope of investigation

  1. There is no telephone recording of the call which caused the resident a grievance. This Service therefore has limited information to understand the context of what was discussed. However, we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns including how it investigated the report, whether it took the resident’s report seriously and its reasoning provided to the resident.

Summary of events

  1. On 13 March 2023 the resident discussed an incident involving him and his neighbour with the landlord, in which he had contacted the police about the neighbour parking on the pavement. The resident stated the neighbour accused him of calling the police, despite his call being anonymous. During the discussion, the resident stated the landlord’s staff member responded saying ‘I’m not surprised he assumed it was you’.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 March 2023 and escalated his complaint on 24 April 2023. He believed the language used by the staff member was offensive and he wanted an explanation why it was said.
  3. Within its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, dated 20 April 2023 and 24 May 2023, the landlord explained:
    1. It did not have telephone recordings to review the call.
    2. It spoke to its staff member involved and they explained the resident had informed the staff member he was the person who contacted the police. The comment they made was reflective of an ongoing dispute between the resident and the neighbour, and the neighbour was likely to have assumed it was the resident who reported them based on the previous incidents. They confirmed the wording used was an observation and that no malice was intended. It apologised the resident believed it was the case.
    3. It did not feel it acted incorrectly and did not uphold the complaint.

Assessment and findings

A staff member’s conduct during a telephone call with the resident

  1. The landlord’s investigation into the resident’s grievance involved a discussion with the staff member involved to understand what happened. This was in line with its complaints policy requirements for investigation of a complaint. It provided the explanation to the resident which he requested in his formal complaint. The landlord did not consider the statement to be offensive and was suggestive of the ongoing neighbour dispute which it had received reports of from the resident and his neighbour.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably to the resident by investigating the background of the situation and interviewing the staff member involved. While the resident was dissatisfied with the explanation, the landlord provided context and determined the staff member’s wording was not unreasonable.
  3. While this Service appreciates the resident was upset by the staff member’s statement, the landlord clearly set out it did not mean to cause offence to the resident and apologised if it had been received in such a way. This was reasonable and showed the landlord took the resident’s complaint seriously by providing his requested outcome in an explanation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions amounted to no maladministration.

The associated complaint

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 March 2023. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 20 April 2023. This was a delay of 3 weeks. This was not in line with its complaints policy timescales or the Code.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord sought to contact the resident to agree an extension to provide its stage 1 response. The landlord acted unfairly to the resident and left him in the complaint process without a timescale to expect a response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was evidence of a service failing.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of a staff member’s conduct during a telephone call with the resident
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord investigated the issue and provided context to explain the reasoning for what was said. This was in line with the resident’s request in his original complaint.
  2. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response within its policy timescales and did not agree an extension with the resident.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failing identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling service failure.