A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202442654)

Background

1. The resident is in assured tenant of the landlord, and she lives in a 2 bedroom second-floor flat. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and fibromyalgia that impact her mobility. It is also aware that the resident was previously a victim of domestic abuse.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports concerning an alleged sexual assault by a former member of staff.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning an alleged sexual assault by a former member of staff.
4. There was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
5. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. Responded appropriately to the resident’s allegation of a sexual assault by a staff member in making relevant internal and external referrals and signposting the resident to receive additional free 24-hour confidential support.
   2. Investigated the allegation in line with its policies.
   3. Considered rehousing options, awarding a Band A priority and providing rehousing advice options so she could move more quickly to an area she wished to live in.
   4. Communicated reasonably, however, it failed to respond to the resident’s email of 11 December 2024 until its complaint escalation acknowledgement of 8 January 2025 which was a failing.
   5. Did not maintain complete records of its communication with the resident to document the dates it had contacted the resident and when it made a referral to its wellbeing team.
   6. Considered learning from the complaint to review its policy and processes to replace its good repute policy with a more comprehensive disclosure and barring check policy to ensure accountability for candidates and employees.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us that the situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing and that she was looking for justice. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this any further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. We have investigated the period from the resident’s initial report to the landlord of the alleged sexual assault on 16 September 2024 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 22 January 2025.
9. Following the resident’s phone call to the landlord on 16 September 2024, the landlord’s safeguarding officer escalated the report to the safeguarding manager and a director which was appropriate and in line with its safeguarding policy. According to the landlord’s safeguarding adults’ policy where a member of staff is subject to disciplinary action following inappropriate behaviour which has caused customers harm, or put customers at risk of future harm, managers should inform the safeguarding team.
10. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint of 23 September 2024 as a new complaint as it had another complaint open concerning the security of the main entrance door. At this point the landlord needed to decide as to whether its complaints process was the most appropriate avenue to take due to the allegation being about a criminal matter under Police investigation concerning an employee’s conduct. The landlord’s complaints policy states that where a complaint concerns a member of staff, it will investigate this through its complaints process. It says that a complaint can then be escalated to stage 2. The landlord therefore acted in line with its complaints policy in deciding to answer the resident’s complaint through its complaints process.
11. Following the resident’s initial report of 16 September 2024, the landlord’s records were unclear as to when its safeguarding manager contacted the resident and we have seen no call record until 26 September 2024. It is not clear therefore whether the call was made earlier than this which would have been appropriate under the circumstances. There is no record that earlier signposting to support services was made before the landlord issued its 7 October 2024 complaint response. This evidences issues with the landlord’s records management.
12. The landlord’s internal emails of 26 September 2024 evidence that it had been struggling to contact a relevant staff member so that they could arrange a visit to the resident. However, following this internal email, the landlord phoned the resident and arranged to visit her home the following day. It took a statement on 27 September 2024 concerning the incident. It said it discussed a referral to its wellbeing team and mentioned this again in its internal email of 1 October 2024. It said that the referral had been made in its stage 1 complaint response of 7 October 2024 but as the records are incomplete the date of the referral is unknown. It is also not known why an early referral was not made. Given the nature of the allegation, it would have been beneficial to do this straight away.
13. There was a gap in the landlord’s communication with the resident following her email of 11 December 2024. We have seen no record of a response until it sent its stage 2 acknowledgement of 7 January 2025. Given the circumstances, this would have likely caused distress to the resident which was a service failing.
14. The landlord’s internal emails of 3 October 2024 said it had spoken to the resident who had asked it to confirm the outcome of its investigation. The landlord also said that it had informed its chief executive and suggested notifying the necessary agencies such as the barring agency of the allegations. It confirmed that the employee no longer worked for them, and it had therefore applied no sanctions. It had also confirmed that it had completed all necessary pre-employment checks, and it could not have known what would happen. It said it had suspended the employee as soon as the Police had informed them of the allegation pending investigation. It also obtained advice from its people team on what information could be shared with the resident so as to not breach GDPR which was appropriate.
15. The landlord went on to say in its stage 2 complaint response of 22 January 2025 that its employee had undertaken relevant training. This included safeguarding and code of conduct training. This meant that they were fully aware of how the expectations regarding conduct at work. It said it had interviewed the employee who admitted to a consensual intimate relationship with the resident. It said had the employee still been employed it would have taken disciplinary action which would have likely led to their dismissal. As the employee’s conduct had breached trust, professionalism and was against its code of conduct, it upheld the resident’s complaint.
16. The landlord’s actions were in line with its recruitment policy which requires relevant Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are completed, and that staff receive safeguarding training. It also acted in accordance with its good repute standards policy that requires pre-employment checks to be completed.
17. In its final complaint response of 22 January 2025, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s distress and awarded £750 in compensation which is on the higher scale in its compensation policy. It apologised that the resident was going through the experience and gave a contact name for the resident to reach out for support. It also confirmed that the resident was in a Band A for a housing transfer which would mean she would be top priority for a move when an alternative home became available. It had also put a female neighbourhood manager in place and referred itself to the Regulator of Social Housing. These were all appropriate actions to take.
18. We have considered the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable and we have not seen any evidence that its actions were contrary to its policies. However, there was a service failure in the landlord’s lack of response to the resident’s email of 11 December 2024. As mentioned this investigation focusses on the impact of the landlord’s service failings identified through the internal complaints process. It is not an assessment of whether the resident has received justice for the substantive allocations. We would have found service failure; however, the landlord has offered an appropriate level of compensation in recognition of the resident’s distress. This is in line with our guidance on remedies. The Ombudsman considers that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about staff conduct regarding an alleged sexual assault. We have made no orders but have made a recommendation concerning staff training around victims of domestic abuse. We have also recommended that the landlord update the resident on her housing transfer application.

19. The resident made her complaint on 23 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 September 2024 within the 5 working day period specified by its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its stage 1 complaint response was issued on 7 October 2024. This was issued within 7 working days of its acknowledgement being sent.
20. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 3 January 2025, and the landlord acknowledged this within 3 working days on 8 January 2025. It issued its final complaint response on 22 January 2025 which was 10 working days after the acknowledgement was sent.
21. The landlord’s complaint policy and the Code require the landlord to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement being sent. The landlord is required to respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement being sent. The landlord therefore responded appropriately within these required timescales. This was in accordance with its complaints policy and the Code. We have therefore found no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Learning

22. Following the end of the internal complaints process, the landlord advised us that it was intending to replace its good repute policy with a more comprehensive disclosure and barring check policy. This would mean that no candidate would start or stay in post without a valid DBS in place. It would hold managers accountable to ensure that the policy was followed. It was appropriate that the landlord considered learning from the complaints process to adopt changes that it felt were necessary. We have recommended that the landlord considers in its policy reviews how it should consider vulnerabilities related to victims of domestic abuse. It should also consider its service standards, appropriate signposting and response timescales.
23. We have recently recommended that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management, based on our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) along with its own report, to consider improvements to its records management.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. We found that the landlord did not keep sufficient records to record the actions it had taken. It was particularly important to document all of its actions in full given the serious nature of the resident’s allegations. We have recently recommended that the landlord reviews it self-assessment of its knowledge and information management, based on our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023), along with its own report, to consider improvements to its records management.

Communication

25. Overall, the landlord communicated appropriately with the resident, offering signposting and a referral to its wellbeing team. It generally responded within reasonable timeframes including on the same day to the resident’s emails other than the gap in its communication following the resident’s 11 December 2024 email.