London Borough of Islington (202332440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332440

Islington Council

12 June 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 a complaint about staff conduct.

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident was a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom, third floor flat. The resident no longer lives at the property.
On 28 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of a staff member. The resident stated the following:
1. On 18 August 2023 the resident’s husband was copied into an internal landlord email. The email was about the handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB). In the email a staff member (‘the staff member’) thanked a colleague for their “patience” in handling the reports.
2. The resident found the use of the word “patience” insulting. On 13 September 2023 she emailed the staff member and asked why the word “patience” had been used.
3. A manager (‘the manager’) responded to the resident. The manager’s email did not explain why the word “patience” had been used. The email referred to an apology, but the resident had not received an apology.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 12 October 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord stated the following:
1. It was sorry if the resident felt the email sent by the staff member was insulting.
2. The staff member had already apologised to the resident’s husband for copying him into the email.
3. The staff member had not responded to the resident’s email. However, the manager had provided a response.
On 12 October 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord provided a ‘chief executive stage’ response on 10 November 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and stated the following:
1. It did not agree that the use of the word “patience” was intended to insult the resident. It was sorry for any upset this had caused. However, as the staff member had already apologised to the resident’s husband, the impact of the email would have been small.
2. The resident emailed the staff member on 13 September 2023. The manager had responded to the resident’s email. The landlord was sorry if this meant the resident thought her email had been ignored.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 14 December 2023 because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her complaint about staff conduct. Internal disciplinary processes are for the landlord to manage. Our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint made by the resident.
Theresident’s complaintrelatesto a comment made by the staff member about the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The resident hasmade a separate complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. This investigation is restricted to the landlord’s handling of the complaint about staff conduct. While the ASB reportsare referred to, the landlord’s handling of the reports doesnot form part of this assessment.

The landlord’s handling of a complaint about staff conduct

The landlord contacted the resident and her husband by email on 18 August 2023. The email stated the landlord was closing 2 ASB cases that concerned reports the resident had made.
On the same date, an email was sent by the staff member to a colleague. The email concerned the handling of the ASB cases and the case closure email. It thanked the colleague for their “hard work and patience”. The resident’s husband was copied into the email.
The resident contacted the staff member by email on 13 September 2023. She said the email appeared to be “celebratory” and asked why the word “patience” had been used. The resident said she felt the email was “disparaging and insulting”. She asked the staff member if the landlord had sent any other similar emails about her and her husband.
The manager emailed the resident on the same date. The email set out how the landlord had responded to the resident’s ASB reports.
On 28 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of the staff member. The resident stated the following:
1. On 18 August 2023 the resident’s husband was copied into an internal landlord email. In the email the staff member thanked a colleague for their handling of the resident’s ASB cases and for their “patience”.
2. She felt use of the word “patience” was insulting, and she therefore asked the staff member why the word had been used.
3. The manager responded to the resident’s email. The response did not explain why the word “patience” was used.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Its corporate complaints policy states at stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 3 days and provide a response within 10 working days. If a resident asks for their complaint to be reviewed, the landlord will provide an acknowledgement of the request within 3 days and a ‘chief executive stage’ response within 20 working days.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 12 October 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord stated the following:
1. It was sorry if the resident felt the email sent by the staff member was insulting. The staff member had confirmed no other such emails had been sent.
2. The staff member apologised to the resident’s husband on 8 September 2023 for copying him into the email.
3. It had asked the staff member why she had not responded to the email the resident sent on 13 September 2023. The staff member had explained the response was provided by the manager.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response in 10 working days. This was within its policy timeframes.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states:
1. A complaint“is an expression of dissatisfaction, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf”.
2. If a complaint is not upheld the landlord should provide an explanation why and detail the investigation that was carried out.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint responsesaid that to investigate the complaint it had interviewed the staff member. The response said the complaint was not upheld because the manager had responded to the resident’s concerns. The evidence shows, however, the manger’s email only concerned the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. The email did not address the resident’s concerns about staff conduct or the use of the word “patience”.
On 12 October 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s request for her complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord provided a ‘chief executive stage’ response on 10 November 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and stated the following:
1. It did not agree that the use of the word “patience” was intended to insult the resident. The staff member had intended to provide feedback to a colleague. It was sorry for any upset caused to the resident. However, as the staff member had already apologised to the resident’s husband, the impact of the staff member’s email would have been small.
2. It was sorry that the email sent by the manager did not explain it was a response to the email the resident had sent to the staff member.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in 20 working days. This was 1 day after the timeframe set out in its policy. While this was a failing, it is unlikely to have caused detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that to investigate the resident’s complaint it had reviewed the emails sent by the staff member and the manager. The response said the complaint was not upheld because there was no intention to insult the resident.
The response failed to acknowledge that the manager’s email had not addressed the resident’s concerns. Its conclusion that the impact of the staff member’s email was “minimal”, also risked appearing dismissive of the resident’s concerns.
In summary, by the end of the landlord’s complaints process it had clarified the language used in the staff member’s email was not intended as an insult. However, it failed to acknowledge its earlier response had not fully addressed the resident’s concerns. Also, its view that the impact on the resident was minimal, was likely to have been interpreted by the resident as trivialising her complaint.
As a result, the failure to acknowledge its earlier error and the lack of sensitivity in its communication, leads to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.
The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay £75 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

The compensation should be paid direct to the resident and should not be paid to a rent or service charge account.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within the dates specified.