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

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202216793)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216793

Guinness Housing Association Limited

15 June 2023

 

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 report of staff misconduct.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has since advised this Service that the resident no longer resides at the property.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the conduct of an operative who attended her home, when undertaking repair work to her toilet on 16 September 2022. The resident was unhappy with the operative’s workmanship, and said the operative had displayed “threatening behaviour”. She had therefore asked him to leave her home and never return. She said that due to his “aggression” beforehand she began to record the operative as she had felt intimidated. The resident said she did not expect to be shouted at or made to feel threatened in her home, and stated that she did not want the operative in her home again.
  3. In its record of the complaint, the landlord noted that the resident provided it with two video recordings. The landlord took statements on the day of the incident, from the operative in question, and another operative who attended the property later that day to finish the toilet works.
  4. In its complaint response issued 20 October 2022, the landlord said that the videos the resident provided lacked context, and did not show the operative doing anything unreasonable. It explained that it would have expected the engineer to leave once the resident began to record. It said it appreciated that not having the toilet fixed correctly must have been frustrating for the resident, and confirmed that following the incident another operative attended and completed the work. It offered £20 compensation, for the delay in issuing its stage one response (which was two working days outside of its expected timeframe). It also apologised that the toilet repair work not been completed correctly in the first instance.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service. She said that she had been shouted at and verbally abused by the operative and believed that the landlord had minimised her experience. The resident did not specify what outcome she was seeking, other than the operative not attending her property again. She also said that the landlord made no mention of her damaged property and decoration.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident advised this Service that the landlord gave no “mention of [her] damaged property and decoration.” It is noted that in her initial complaint, the resident highlighted that she had experienced “nothing but issues” since her tenancy began, and mentioned that decorating had been damaged by the landlord’s operatives. However, it is not apparent from the evidence provided what repair issue this related to, whether the resident had highlighted this in support of her complaint or whether it was an outstanding issue she wanted the landlord to address. Moreover, the evidence does not show this matter was raised as part of the resident’s stage two complaint, and therefore will not be considered in this investigation, as the landlord first needs to be given the opportunity to consider the above at both stages of its complaints process before the Ombudsman can investigate. The resident can make a complaint to the landlord about this issue if it is still of concern.
  2. It should be understood that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen. Rather, this investigations centres on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and complaints on the matter, and whether it acted reasonably in line with good practice and any relevant policies.
  3. The evidence shows that as part of the landlord’s investigation, it promptly sought statements from both operatives who had attended the resident’s home to gain their perspective on what had occurred. It was appropriate that the landlord gained statements from both operatives. This not only allowed it to carry out an impartial investigation into the matter of the alleged behavior, but also to gain a full perspective on each operatives’ repair activities to ensure its obligations were being met towards the resident in respect of the repair issue. The landlord also appropriately utilised its initial complaint response to reassure the resident that it took complaints regarding staff conduct seriously, as would be expected of it.
  4. In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the seriousness of the resident’s reports and the impact her experience had on her. It appropriately considered the videos the resident provided, and explained its conclusions. It managed the resident’s expectations in that it explained the investigative steps that it had taken, as it said that its relevant staff member had discussed the incident with both operatives, and taken the relevant action. This demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  5. Overall, the landlord investigated the resident’s reports and complaints reasonably. It considered the available evidence, obtained information from its operatives, considered the resident’s account of events, and clearly explained its conclusions. Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation suggests the landlord ignored or overlooked anything it should also have considered, or that its conclusions were unsound.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.