West Northamptonshire Council (202536499)

Background

1. In September 2025, the resident complained to the landlord about its officer’s (‘Officer A’) conduct. He asked to be assigned a new officer. He also said that he required documents in large print, and that the landlord should have asked about any adjustments he may have needed as it was aware he was dyslexic.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Vulnerabilities.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

5. When considering a resident’s complaint about staff conduct, it is outside of our remit to determine whether there was or was not misconduct. Instead, we can determine whether the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately and whether it acted reasonably in the circumstances.
6. The landlord’s employee conduct policy says that employees “are expected to maintain behaviour of the highest standard”.
7. The resident told the landlord that Officer A rolled their eyes and tutted when he was unable to speak to them when they visited him as he was on a call. He also said that they had been rude to him in the past. He asked to be assigned a new officer.
8. In response the landlord said:
   1. Officer A’s recollection of the events differed from the resident’s.
   2. It had reviewed its system and could not see any other notes in relation to Officer A’s conduct in the past.
   3. Officer A’s manager would monitor any correspondence between them and the resident for 6 months. They would also be available for any scheduled contact between Officer A and the resident if required.
9. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a proportionate and reasonable investigation into the resident’s concerns about Officer A. It is acknowledged that the resident asked for a new officer. However, a landlord’s decision to remove an officer from their assigned resident would normally be based on evidence. This is because it would need to be able to satisfy itself that doing so was fair to all in the circumstances. Landlords are also generally permitted to manage their resources as they see fit.
10. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to monitor Officer A’s contact with the resident instead of assigning the resident a new officer was reasonable and fair. This demonstrated that while it did not find evidence of inappropriate behaviour, it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
11. It also showed that the landlord was committed to monitoring the matter to ensure its standards were met following the resident’s complaint. It is acknowledged that the landlord additionally apologised for any distress caused by the matter. Taking the above into consideration, we are satisfied that the landlord took appropriate action in the circumstances.
12. It is unclear what transpired after the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, the resident has told us that he currently has an informal agreement to discuss his housing matters directly with a different officer. He would like the landlord to formalise the arrangement and update its system. We encourage the resident to put his request to the landlord if he has not done so already. We have also made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss this matter further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities

13. Landlords have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
14. In September 2025, the resident told the landlord that a letter he had recently received from it was in standard size print. He asked that its future letters were sent to him in large print. He noted that it was aware of his dyslexia and therefore he felt it should have asked him whether he required any reasonable adjustments before.
15. In response, the landlord said:
    1. Although it was aware that the resident had dyslexia, it did not have any record that he required documents in large print. It had carried out tenancy visits in 2022 and the resident had confirmed at that time that he did not require any support or adaptations.
    2. It had updated the resident’s records to notify staff members that he required large print documents.
    3. It had accessible software on its website and provided a link to its accessibility statement.
16. The evidence shows that the landlord updated its system to show that the resident required large print documents as it said it had. Given the circumstances, this was an appropriate course of action to put matters right for the resident.
17. The resident has told us that he is still receiving correspondence in standard size print. The reason for this is unclear. While his frustration is acknowledged, we are unable to investigate these concerns as they are new incidents that did not form part of the original complaint. The resident may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord. If he remains dissatisfied with its response, he can refer the matter to us to consider.
18. In addition, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss these concerns.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.