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

London Borough of Hounslow (202110086)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110086

London Borough of Hounslow

18 July 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 handling of an allegation about the resident’s behaviour towards a contractor.

Background

2.     The resident is a flexible tenant with the landlord at the property.

3.     The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 7 December 2020. He stated that he had been falsely accused of being verbally abusive towards two of its contractors. The contractors had visited the property on 4 December 2020. They were carrying out a scoping of repair works, following a surveyor’s report. Whilst inside the address, the resident spoke with the contractor’s manager on the telephone. The contractors left the resident’s property after stating the resident had been abusive towards them.

4.     The resident requested the landlord acknowledge his complaint on two further occasions in December 2020. He also said that this was the fourth time he had been falsely accused by the landlord of similar behaviour. On 22 December 2020 the landlord responded to the resident and confirmed that the contractors had not made any formal allegation against him. It also said it would not comment further regarding the matter. This was because the visit to the property related to a disrepair claim that was being reviewed by its legal team. In February 2021, the resident raised his complaint again. The landlord repeated that due to its on-going disrepair claim with its legal team, it could not comment or respond to the resident’s complaint.

 

5.     On 23 August 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident’s solicitor which said “Your client was reported to be rude and aggressive, so my client had to leave the property. Please kindly remind your client that such treatment of my client’s staff is unacceptable and not tolerated and this will be referred to your client’s housing officer, if continued.”

6.     In December 2021, the resident contacted this service as the landlord had not responded to his complaint. He also stated that he had video evidence that proved the contractor’s allegation against him was false. The resident had made the decision to not provide this evidence to the landlord, when it requested this. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response, on 25 January 2022. The resident had requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of its complaint process before he had received its stage one response.

7.     This service contacted the landlord again in February 2022, requesting it provide a stage two response to the resident. The landlord provided a further stage one response on 30 May 2022 and its final response on 26 August 2022. In its final response, the landlord apologised and accepted it could provide a response to the resident’s complaint. It stated that it had no record of the incident on 4 December 2020 and so no further action would be taken.

8.     The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 October 2022 seeking an apology, compensation, and the removal of any record of the allegation from the landlord’s records, regarding the incident on 4 December 2020. He also requested a single point of contact at the landlord going forward.

Assessment and findings

9.     When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

10. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policies and Procedures

11. Within the landlord’s corporate complaints policy, it states that it will commit to following:

  1. Deal with all complaints fairly, thoroughly and in a timely manner.
  2. Review any comments and follow up with the appropriate service, who will take action where necessary.

12. The landlord’s complaints policy has a two-stage complaint process. It states the landlord will provide a stage one complaint response within 15 working days. Following a resident’s request to escalate their complaint, it will provide its stage two response within 20 working days.

13. Its complaints policy also states it will not consider complaints about members of staff working as contractors under this policy. It handles these matters under its management policy. It will also not consider complaints where a resident has started legal proceedings, or where it is being, or has been previously considered by a court or tribunal.

The resident’s concern regarding an allegation about their behaviour towards a contractor

14. The resident complained in December 2020 and February 2021 about an allegation made against him by the landlord’s contractor. The landlord should have recognised the resident’s complaint was separate to the purpose of its contractors’ visit to the property on 4 December 2020. It was appropriate for the landlord to say it could not comment on the resident’s legal disrepair claim through its complaints process as this is a legal matter which is separate from the complaints process. However, the resident’s concerns about allegations made against him were not part of the legal disrepair claim and should have been considered through the complaints process.

15.  The landlord should have raised the resident’s complaint and provided its stage one response within ten working days. Its own policy states it will do this within 15 working days, however this is not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord should have exhausted its complaints process and in doing so, this would have shown it to be fair, thorough, and timely as it describes its own approach within its complaint handling policy. By not taking the resident’s complaint, in the Ombudsman’s view, this would have contributed to the resident’s lack of trust in the landlord and its processes. This would have caused distress to the resident.

16. On 23 August 2021, the resident was sent a letter from the landlord’s legal team via his solicitor. This letter repeated the contractor’s allegation that the resident was “rude and aggressive” on 4 December 2020. The report went on the state: “This will be referred to you client’s housing officer, if continued.” It has not been made clear in the evidence provided to this service, why this letter was sent 262 days after the alleged incident. This seems like an unnecessary long time to provide a warning about a resident’s behaviour. The resident had previously been informed by the landlord that there had been no formal allegation made.

17. The landlord had still not provided a response to the resident’s complaint by this time, which was not right. It should have addressed the resident’s original complaint, in line with its complaints policy. It should have also made it clear to the resident if the incident was still subject to investigation and or review. As a result, this had a detriment to resident, who felt he was being ignored and given misinformation by the landlord’s decision on how it chose to handle the incident. Although the letter is a warning, as opposed to formal action, the Ombudsman can understand in the circumstances, and being sent by the landlord’s solicitor, why the resident felt the landlord had taken formal action against him.

18. This service told the landlord to provide a stage one complaint response to the resident by 23 December 2021. It stated it would provide a response by 14 January 2022. The landlord asked the resident in January 2022, for a copy of the video, which the resident stated provided evidence that he was neither threatening, rude or abusive towards the contractors on 4 December 2020. It was right that the landlord asked for this video as it was potentially corroborative evidence of the resident’s complaint. The resident declined to provide this to the landlord. He was not obliged to provide it and he gave his reasons as being that this was the fourth time, he had been accused of being abusive. He also said that the landlord was attempting to terminate his tenancy. The resident did provide this service with a copy of the video however, it would be unfair to refer to the video evidence as part of this assessment because the landlord has not had access to it. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord could not respond to information which it was not given and therefore the Ombudsman cannot criticise the landlord for not responding to this information.

19. The resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint on 17 January 2022. This was before the stage one response was provided on 25 January 2022. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the stage one complaint. This service requested the landlord provide a stage two response to the resident within 20 working days of 23 February 2022. The landlord responded that it could not provide a stage two response as it had closed the stage one complaint. Therefore, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 30 May 2022. This was 374 working days after the resident first raised his complaint.

20.  After further contact with this service, the landlord provided its final response on 26 August 2022. This was a further 150 working days after the resident requested his complaint be escalated. This is a significant delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and not in line with its complaints policy as referred to above. The detriment to the resident has been a lack of trust and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of this complaint. The resident was delayed in bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was obliged to wait for the landlord to issue its final response before asking the Ombudsman to investigate. For the reasons above in this report, this service makes a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of this complaint.

21. In its final response the landlord accepted that it should have taken the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. It repeated that it did not have an incident involving its contractors recorded on the resident’s tenancy. Therefore, it could not remove something which was not there. This is a reasonable response by the landlord. It was fair that it advised the resident that its contractors should not feel intimidated or fearful when carrying out their work. However, the landlord should investigate such allegations rather than accepting them at face value and it should consider any counter allegations made by residents before taking action such as issuing tenancy warnings.

22. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened and a lack of evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened. The resident has provided video evidence, but this cannot be considered because the landlord has not had the opportunity to view it. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot conclude whether the allegations made about the resident’s were valid. Nevertheless, the landlord has said it has not recorded these allegations formally so there is no further action for the landlord to take to remove such a record.

23. The resident requested a single point of contact with the landlord during his complaint. This was a reasonable request and would have assisted its communication with the resident. This service recommends that the landlord consider appointing a point of contact for the resident to assist in improving future communication between both parties.

24. The landlord, however, should have apologised for the length of the delay it took to handle the resident’s complaint. Its complaints policy states that it will ensure the remedy is appropriate and proportionate. The landlord did not provide this in its final response. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. This reflects the significant delay, and the detriment caused to the resident in seeking for his complaint to be taken in the first place. Examples of this level of compensation include where the landlord has failed to provide a proportionate offer of action or compensation, that fully reflects the detriment caused to the resident. As in case of this complaint.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern regarding an allegation about their behaviour towards a contractor.

Orders

26. The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days of the issue of this report. The apology is to be in line with this Service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concern regarding an allegation about their behaviour towards a contractor.

27. The landlord is to pay the resident £250 in compensation within 28 days of this report.

28. The landlord should carry out an internal review within eight weeks of this report of its handling of this resident’s complaint to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its internal complaint’s procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code. It should share with this service that it has done so.

Recommendations

29. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its internal complaint’s procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code.

30. The landlord should consider appointing a single point of contact for the resident.