Raven Housing Trust Limited (202008210)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008210

Raven Housing Trust Limited

20 May 2021

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repair to an aerial.
2. Response to reports from the landlord’s contractor of abusive behaviour by the resident.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. He moved into the property by way of a mutual exchange in 2019. The property is a one-bedroomed flat.
The landlord repairs leaflet says an emergency repair affects the safety or basic security of a home or may affect the health of the household. Routine repairs will be offered the next available appointment but will attend within 28 days. The landlord says that for repairs affecting communal facilities, such as the TV aerial, an appointment will be offered within three days and a contractor will attend within seven days.
The landlord’s unacceptable behaviour guidance says that its staff understand the difference between anger and aggression. For example, many complainants feel angry about the events that resulted in them contacting us. However, it is not acceptable when anger escalates into aggression towards its staff. Aggression is not restricted to acts that may result in physical harm. It also includes behaviour or language that may cause staff to feel afraid, threatened, or abused and this is not tolerated. Examples of aggressive behaviour include threats, physical violence, personal abuse, derogatory or discriminatory remarks or rudeness. In the event that its staff experience the above, it withholds the right to refuse to deal with a complaint until the complainant’s behaviour is acceptable and staff feel safe to do so.
The guidance also says that the landlord will manage unacceptable behaviour depending on the nature and extent of it. Steps it may take include, separately or in combination: restricting contact in person, by telephone, fax, letter or electronically or by any combination of these; restricting the frequency of contact or requesting that an advocate acts on the resident’s behalf.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that a manager will respond to a formal complaint within 15 working days of receiving the complaint. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their formal complaint, they may request an appeal on specific grounds including:
1. There was a material administrative error in the information received and considered.
2. That the complaint has not been conducted in accordance with its complaint policy.
3. The value of financial compensation is incorrect.
The landlord’s appeal stage will not consider any issues that were not included in the original formal complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that, for service failures, it can make a financial or non-financial, goodwill gesture

Summary of events

In the afternoon of 25 June 2020, the resident reported to the landlord a problem with the TV aerial that was affecting him and others in the block. In that call he asked if someone would be out that day and was told “well, it’s still quite early so I would like to think that we could get someone out today…”.
On 29 June 2020, when the resident called for an update, the landlord said the repair detail had been sent to the engineer’s and it expected them to attend either that day or the day after.
On 30 June 2020 the resident called the landlord wanting to speak to a manager about its aerial repair contractor. The customer services team spoke to him that day; the landlord raised a formal complaint that day and said it would respond by 16 July 2020. That afternoon the aerial engineer called the resident to arrange a time to attend the property to repair the aerial.
On 1 July 2020 the contractors made a complaint to the landlord about the conduct of the resident who they said was “incredibly rude to our engineer” when he had called to arrange an appointment the previous day. They said the resident had called the engineer “useless and incompetent”. The contractor added that actual account included a lot more swearing by the resident and he was “very aggressive in his tone”. It added it had a zero–tolerance policy with regards to abuse whether verbal or physical and they found his behaviour “entirely unacceptable”.
The engineer carried out the aerial repair on the morning of 2 July 2020.
On 7 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. Its main points were:
1. It acknowledged that not having TV while self-isolating must have been difficult and frustrating.
2. It did not follow the correct procedure to raise the repair. That meant there was one day’s delay from the Friday to Monday to raise the appointment with the contractor.
3. Its customer service advisor should have advised that the repair timescales to investigate a communal aerial repair was an appointment with three days of receiving the notification with seven days to resolve the issue.
4. The contractor rang to offer the resident an appointment within its timescales; however, because it had not followed the correct procedure or informed him of timescales, he was dissatisfied. The landlord apologised for its service failure.
5. It offered a goodwill gesture of £15 for the loss of service and the distress caused.
In this letter the landlord also said that its contractor had raised a complaint about the resident’s behaviour on the phone and at the block when they attended. It explained that this had given it cause for concern as it took the health and safety of its staff and contractors very seriously. The landlord said that it accepted that anger was a normal human reaction when someone was frustrated, and advisors were trained to diffuse that anger. It added that, while it did not have the call recorded with its contractor, it had incident reports for both the phone call and visit where the contractor had stated that his behaviour had included persistent swearing; yelling; and derogatory comments about their competency.
The landlord said that this behaviour constituted verbal abuse and was unacceptable. It said it had placed his home on its “visit in pairs list” for six months and it would not accept any further incidents of this nature. The landlord explained how the resident could appeal the complaint decision.
On 18 July 2020 the resident asked to appeal the complaint decision. He said he was awaiting the recordings of his calls to its customer services team and the contractor. He said he had been without a TV for eight days and the landlord’s process was “flawed from start to finish”. He also said the contractor had been rude when he called to make an appointment and had hung up the phone on him. He added that he was “insulted” that staff had to visit the property in pairs.
On 22 July 2020 the engineer gave the landlord further details of the telephone call with the resident of 30 June 2020.
On 24 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident about his request for an appeal of its complaint decision. It said that it was clear on the reason for requesting an appeal on the outcome of his complaint as it had been upheld. It reiterated the previous apology that he did not receive the service it expected and said steps had been put in place to improve training for staff relating to aerial repairs in future as a learning from his complaint. Turning to compensation the landlord said that his aerial was a small element of his service charge of £4.83 per week; therefore, the £15.00 compensation offered was more than was appropriate. However, it said it would increase the offer to £50.00 to reflect the level of distress this had caused him.
The landlord said the resident had expressed his dissatisfaction that, since his complaint, staff/contractors have said they will only visit him in pairs. The landlord explained that this was a result of feedback from its contractor about his behaviour towards them on the phone and face to face. It added that, as the contractor did not record their calls, it was unable to provide any call recordings or transcripts. The landlord said it had received a detailed account from the member of staff concerned at the contractors. It added that it took the health and safety of its staff, customers and contractors very seriously and took reasonable steps to ensure that, where staff or contractors have felt threatened, been sworn at or otherwise been subjected to inappropriate or derogatory comments, it would send two staff members to visits. The landlord said it would review its decision in six months’ time. The landlord concluded by saying the resident had not met the grounds for appeal. The landlord subsequently signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 4 August 2020 the landlord wrote to resident explaining that his complaint concerned the aerial repair, not its decision that staff should visit the property in pairs as that was a separate matter that had arisen subsequently in relation to the impact of his behaviour on the contractor.
On 13 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it had not shared the details of the statement from the contractor and, on reflection, believed it could have done so. It said the report of swearing and derogatory comments towards someone trying to resolve the problem were not acceptable. It added that it had worked with the contractor concerned for a number of years and this was the first time they had made a complaint about the conduct of a customer and advised they were unhappy visiting the property due to abusive language. The landlord included a detailed report from the contractor which included his assertion that the resident had called him “useless” and “incompetent” and included many references to a very strong swear word in relation to the landlord’s and contractor’s actions. The engineer noted he had abruptly ended the call.
The landlord explained that it understood the resident was not happy with the conduct of the contractor and equally the contractor had stated and had provided evidence that they were not happy with his conduct. It said it was difficult to resolve this to the resident’s satisfaction and, for that reason, it believed an appropriate response was that it would send two operatives or staff members to the property; that was as much for his protection as for its staff to avoid this type of incident in the future.
On 18 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with transcripts of calls relating to the aerial repair; it said the call between him and the contractor was not recorded.
On 22 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its final position on his complaint. It reiterated its previous findings and said it had previously explained how he could take his complaint to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said that the landlord had been biased towards him and this had caused him distress.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair to an aerial

The landlord has an obligation to repair the communal TV aerial within seven days of the matter being reported (paragraph 3). The landlord’s handling of the reported repair was not appropriate. As the landlord acknowledged in its formal complaint response of 7 July 2020 it did not manage the resident’s expectations by explaining the timescales for this repair (instead suggesting that an engineer might be able to come out that day – paragraph 9). The landlord also acknowledged that it did not follow its repair procedure to raise the repair. This meant that there was a delay informing the engineer.
While the repair was carried out within the timescales of the repair policy (paragraph 3), landlord offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £50 to reflect the level of distress this matter had caused him. That was a proportionate and appropriate sum. While the landlord was not obliged to offer redress, doing so demonstrated its willingness to achieve a resolution in this instance.

The landlord’s response to reports from the contractor of abusive behaviour by the resident

The contractor raised the behaviour of the resident with the landlord on 1 July 2020 (paragraph 12) in relation to a telephone call the previous day. They later raised concerns about the resident’s behaviour while the engineer attended the site.
While the landlord has stressed to the resident that it has not considered a complaint about this matter (paragraph 21), it is clear it has given a final position on this matter (paragraph 22) and we have made a determination on that basis.
The phone call in question took place on 30 June 2020 (paragraph 11) and the landlord raised concerns with the landlord the following day (paragraph 12). On the basis of that report, the landlord decided that its staff and contractors should visit the resident in pairs. That decision was reasonable given the contractors reference to the “very aggressive” nature of the resident’s tone. While there was no recording of that telephone call (calls to/from the contractors are not recorded in the way calls to and from the landlord are), the landlord subsequently obtained further details of that call from the contractor and shared it with the resident (paragraph 22).
The resident believes that the landlord was biased towards the contractors, as it did not follow up on a witness statement he subsequently provided regarding his behaviour while the engineer was on site on 2 July 2020. There was no obligation on the landlord to follow this up. It has a responsibility to keep both residents and its staff and contractors safe. Its decision that this could be achieved by having staff and contractors visit the resident in pairs for a period of six months was reasonable to try to protect all parties.
Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord; its decision that its staff and contractors should attend the property in pairs was a reasonable response to the concerns raised by the contractor following their call to the resident on 30 June 2020.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded initially responded to the complaint within the timescales of the complaints procedures (paragraph 6). While the landlord does not include a timescale for informing residents that their complaint will not progress to appeal stage, it did so in this case within a week, which was reasonable. Its decision not to progress the complaint to appeal stage was also reasonable because it did not meet the criteria for doing so (paragraph 6).
However, it was not appropriate for the landlord to respond to the contractor’s complaint about the resident’s behaviour as part of the formal complaints procedure. That is because it was a separate matter from the resident’s complaint about the length of time it had taken to repair the aerial. In doing so, the resident considered, understandably, that this was an issue he could appeal under the complaints procedure. Overall, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its response to the resident’s reports of repair to an aerial.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports from the contractor of abusive behaviour by the resident.

Reasons

While the repair was carried out within the timescales of the repair policy (paragraph 5), landlord did not follow its procedures. It offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £50 to reflect the level of distress this matter had caused him. That was a proportionate way to put matters right.
The landlord’s decision that its staff and contractors should attend the property in pairs was a reasonable response to the concerns raised about the resident by the contractor.
While the landlord responded timeously to the complaint and its escalation, it was not appropriate that it dealt with the complaint from the contractors as part of its formal complaint response to the resident.

Orders

The landlord shall, within four weeks of the date of this report, write to the resident to apologise to him for any distress and inconvenience caused by its decision to deal with the concerns raised by the contractor in its complaint response to him.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the compensation previously offered of £50, if it has not done so already.