Westward Housing Group Limited (202312923)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312923

Westward Housing Group Limited

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct and its subsequent offer of compensation.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat with communal parking. The tenancy commenced in December 2019 and ended in September 2023.
On 4 April 2023 the resident called to complain to the landlord about her experience that day. She told the landlord its scaffolding contractors were verbally abusive towards her, and she felt intimidated. She also said she would not have been treated like this if she were male. The events that transpired on 4 April 2023 were as follows:
1. The resident returned from an appointment and was unable to access the communal car park due to a lorry blocking the entrance.
2. She waited and then asked a contractor to move the lorry, this contractor was not the driver. The driver was on the roof of the lorry and shouted towards her.
3. She then locked the car and went to her property.
4. Around 15 minutes later there was continuous knocking her front door by a contractor. The resident was on the phone with the landlord.
The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident again on 17 April 2023. It then sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 18 April 2023. It told set out a timeline of the events from 4 April 2023. It also said the following:
1. The landlord expects any contractor working on its behalf to behave with respect. It also reminded its contractors of the standards it expects after the complaint.
2. It apologised for any inconvenience and upset this experience caused.
3. The contractor report stated the lorry was unable to park elsewhere to carry out the works.
4. That its contractors would not cause criminal damage to the resident’s car.
5. It sent a letter to all residents on 16 March 2023 prior to the scaffolding at the property being erected.
6. It was unable to guarantee when all the works at the property would be completed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 April 2023 as she thought the landlord had “downplayed” the resident’s experience on 4 April 2023. She gave her version of events again, and expressed how the situation had affected her wellbeing. She also said she received notification of the works after the scaffolding went up, not before.
The landlord tried to call the resident on 4 May 2023, but was unable to speak to her. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 5 May 2023 offering to discuss her complaint in person at the property. This offer was with members of its staff and a representative from the contractors. The resident expressed dissatisfaction about this offer on 10 May 2023, stating she did not want 2 male staff members to attend her property.
On 19 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding its offer of an in-person visit. It told the resident a further appointment with a female staff member was offered on 17 May 2023 which was declined by the resident. The intention for the meeting was to discuss her complaint and to find a resolution. It also confirmed that the contractor who was involved in the incident on 4 April 2023 had been removed from working at the property.
By 23 May 2023 the resident escalated her complaint regarding contractor conduct and the landlord’s offer to visit the property, as she remained dissatisfied.
On 20 June 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised the experience had discouraged the resident from attending physio appointments.
2. It confirmed the scaffolding would have been removed by 19 June 2023, so no lorries would be at the property blocking the communal parking. The lorry could not turn into the car park so parking was limited.
3. It recognised it should have called the resident on 5 April 2023, but it did not do so until 17 April 2023.
4. The contractor was removed from the site at its request, not due to being near to completing works.
5. It reiterated that a letter was sent notifying residents prior to works starting. It apologised if the resident had not received it.
6. The resident’s complaint was responded to in line with its complaints policy.
7. The offer to send male staff member’s to the resident’s property was not linked with gender, but it wanted to find a resolution to the complaint. It took concerns regarding discrimination seriously.
8. It reassured the resident that additional staff training, and monitoring of its contractor’s behaviour would be actioned in the future.
9. It offered £50 for the distress caused to the resident.
On 12 October 2023 the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate her concerns. She told us that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports that she was verbally abused by a contractor. She also said the level of compensation offered was insufficient.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s communication with the landlord, she stated she would not have had the same experience if she were male. It is recognised that the resident was distressed by what she perceived to be gender discrimination. Whether or not the Equality Act (2010) has been breached by the landlord is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. The resident may wish to seek independent advice regarding this element of her complaint. However, this Service has considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report was appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances. This includes the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff and its actions.
Additionally, it is noted the resident said that the experience of 4 April 2023 affected her wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. This element of the complaint may perhaps be better suited for the courts. However, we will consider the landlord’s actions to put things right and its consideration of any distress, or inconvenience caused.

Contractor’s conduct and offer of compensation

The landlord has accepted that it failed in its service delivery to the resident. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response and the level of compensation offered. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles, which are as follows:
1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The landlord operates a code of conduct for its staff and contractors. Within this it states that its staff and contractors would not use behaviour of a discriminatory or offensive nature. The landlord also operates ‘standards of conduct and probity’. This acknowledges that everyone who represents or works for the landlord is held to the highest standards of conduct. Specifically, it says its staff and contractors are to behave with integrity and conduct should be professional. Breaches of this can also be investigated.
The resident complained about the landlord’s contractor’s conduct towards her in relation to events that happened on 4 April 2023. When a resident reports inappropriate behaviour from staff or contractors, the landlord would be expected to take reasonable steps to verify the resident’s allegations. It is expected the landlord investigate and respond to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available.
The landlord acknowledged the effect on the resident and apologised that its contractor’s behaviour on 4 April 2023 caused her to be upset and feel intimidated. This Service has seen evidence the landlord contacted its staff and contractors, and the resident regarding her complaint to obtain information. In the landlord’s investigation it considered the contractor’s recollection of events. It also recorded the resident’s account of events and its staff who handled the resident’s calls of 4 April 2023. It concluded from its investigation that its contractor’s behaviour was inappropriate, as it was not in accordance with its standards of conduct and probity. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and demonstrated it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously.
The evidence shows the landlord took steps to mitigate risk to the resident and requested removal of the contractor from working at the property. This was also appropriate and in line with its standards of conduct and probity. It had also instructed its contractor to apologise to the resident on 12 May 2023. This was reasonable and showed the landlord was resolution focused.
The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concerns about offering an in person visit to discuss the complaint with her on 5 May 2023. At that stage, the landlord was not aware of the resident’s preference for no male staff member visits. There is evidence it had tried to call the resident the day prior to making this in person visit offer.
After the resident’s email of 10 May 2023 and declining the in person visit, the landlord revised its offer for a female staff member to attend instead. This was ultimately declined by the resident, but the landlord explained it was not its intention to upset the resident. It said it took concerns of discrimination seriously. In considering this, we are unable to conclude that the landlord’s offer to send male staff members to the property was unreasonable. The landlord also demonstrated it was resolution focused.
On 20 June 2023 the landlord admitted it should have called the resident sooner than it did to check on her welfare. It recognised it should have called the following day (5 April 2023), but it did not do so until 17 April 2023. This was reasonable action by the landlord in admitting its service failings. Additionally, the landlord apologised to the resident for any inconvenience caused by the works.
The landlord confirmed that it had notified all residents of the works on 16 March 2023, but apologised that the resident had not received it. In the landlord’s final response, it also identified learning from the complaint. It told the resident that additional staff training, and continued monitoring of contractor’s behaviour, would be actioned in the future.
Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is also given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, considering the severity of the situation and the length of time involved.
The landlord offered £50 for the distress caused to the resident. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. Its policy allows for discretionary payments up to £50 for when it has failed to meet its service standards. This level of award is also in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, for circumstances where there has been service failure.
In this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord showed it had considered the resident’s concerns. The landlord investigated its contractor’s conduct. It provided a proportionate level of redress to the resident. Overall, the landlord had followed its policy, had recognised its service failure, attempted to put things right, and demonstrated learning from outcomes. Therefore, this Service has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct and its subsequent offer of compensation. The finding of reasonable redress is also subject to the financial remedy offered on 20 June 2023. The amount of £50 is to be paid to the resident, if not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct and its subsequent offer of compensation.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its offer of £50 in compensation as detailed in its final response, if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.