City of Doncaster Council (202442198)

Background

1. The resident complained about staff conduct during 2 phone calls with his landlord in November 2024. He said he felt disrespected, and he felt the landlord did not provide a full response to his complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Staff conduct.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct during phone calls.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Staff conduct

4. The landlord delayed providing a full response to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord has a delegated agreement with an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO), who manage tenancies and services on the landlord’s behalf. Throughout this report we will refer to the actions of the ALMO as “the landlord”.
7. The resident said he felt disrespected during a phone call with a particular staff member. It isn’t the Ombudsman’s role to decide how a landlord should deal with any problems in how individual staff members behaved, for example disciplinary or employment matters.
8. When we investigate a complaint, we look at the landlord’s actions as an organisation. We only refer to what individuals did when it helps us understand how the landlord acted overall. If the actions of an individual staff member contribute to a service failure, any findings, orders, or recommendations are made against the landlord, not the individual.
9. The resident complained about staff conduct during 2 phone calls on 25 November 2024. The landlord continued to try and engage with the resident about the rent payments after this. This was reasonable.
10. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 13 December 2024. It said it could not provide feedback regarding the first call, and it apologised if the resident felt the staff member had not been empathetic to him in the second call. There is no evidence to support whether it investigated the complaint, for example through speaking with the staff member involved. This was a failure to fully investigate the resident’s complaint and to provide him with a full response.
11. The landlord provided a fuller response at stage 2. The landlord said it spoke to the staff member involved, however there is no evidence of any further steps it took to investigate. For example, listening to available call recordings. This was a missed opportunity to reassure the resident it had fully investigated his concerns.
12. While the landlord investigated and explained the outcome to the resident, it unreasonably delayed providing the resident with a response by not conducting a full investigation at the earliest opportunity. As the landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaint response, we have ordered the landlord to apologise for the delay to the resident.

13. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are the landlord:
    1. Has a published complaints policy that meets the Code’s response times.
    2. Acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within its policy.
    3. Responded to the stage 1 complaint 1 day outside of its policy.
    4. Acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within 8 working days. Although this was slightly outside of its timeframe, it did not impact the stage 2 response or the resident.
    5. answered the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days, which follows the policy.

Learning

Record keeping

14. The landlord kept good records.

Communication

15. The landlord delayed providing a full response to the resident’s complaint.