Bristol City Council (202111004)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111004

Bristol City Council

8 November 2022

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:
1. The resident’s correspondence sent on 17 May 2021.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the flat, the landlord is the freeholder. The landlord is responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the communal areas.
In April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a concern about the dirtiness of the communal stairs. On 29 April 2021, the landlord confirmed that someone would be cleaning the area within ten days. However, the resident reported that after the ten days, the stairs remained in the same condition.
On 17 May 2021, the resident sent an email to the Caretaking Team Leader and copied this email to the Estates and Sites Manager, the local MP, Councillors and other members of staff within the local authority. The resident said in the email that the issues with the cleaning to the communal areas remained unresolved, despite reports they had made. They asked the landlord what it was going to do to address these issues.
On the same day, a Councillor who was copied into the email, responded and asked the resident for their location, so that they could provide assistance.
The Estates and Sites Manager responded to the Councillor’s email and confirmed the district where the resident lived. The manager also stated to the Councillor that the resident’s complaint would need to be directed through the correct channels so that the resident could receive a prompt and comprehensive reply. The manager said that the resident’s approach of copying in various departments, referred to as a ‘scatter gun approach’, created delays and a poorer quality of customer service. In relation to the issues raised in the resident’s email, the manager advised the Councillor that the caretaking team had been in touch with the resident to provide updates on the cleaning arrangements.
The resident responded and asked the manager if they wanted them to make a formal complaint. The resident said in their email that they were under the impression that their previous contact with the landlord about the issues, had been considered as a complaint.
The landlord did not respond to either of the resident’s emails.
On 1 June 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint about the Estates and Sites Manager’s email to the Councillor, on 17 May 2021. Specifically, they complained that the officer:
1. Used words such as ‘scattergun approach’, which they found to be inappropriate and critical of their approach.
2. Disclosed their personal information without their consent when they responded to the Councillor.
3. Had bypassed them, did not engage or respond to their email and only addressed the Councillor directly.
The resident explained that they wanted an apology from the manager who sent the email, an explanation as to why their email was not responded to and clarification as to who they should be in touch with should they be required to escalate the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 11 June 2021. It explained that in their email, the manager wanted to explain the best way for the resident to get a response to the issues they had raised. It clarified what the term ‘scattergun approach’ meant and advised that this was what the resident had done, as they had copied various people into their email dated 17 May 2021. It said that the use of the term was not meant to be undermining and apologised that it had caused upset.
In regard to the resident’s view on the use of the term being inappropriate, it said that it cannot see how it was defamatory. It advised that it tried to call the resident before the stage one response, to discuss this but was unsuccessful. It advised that the resident could contact it if they wanted to discuss this further.
The landlord reiterated the importance of taking matters through its complaint procedure. It confirmed that the Estates and Sites Manager was happy to be copied in for awareness reasons and said that the Caretaking Manager was also happy to be a first point of contact to report any future issues. It advised that the resident also had a right to approach third parties but advised that this would create delays if the complaint had not exhausted the complaints procedure. It explained that this was the point being made in the Estates and Sites Manager’s email of 17 May 2021.
The landlord said that the manager’s disclosure of the resident’s district to the Councillor did not cause determinant to the resident’s privacy, as their home address was not shared. It advised that the manager’s intentions in providing this information was to reassure the Councillor that the resident lived within their ward and to save the resident the need to answer the Councillor. Nevertheless, it apologised for any upset caused.
On 28 June 2021, the resident sent a letter to the landlord requesting an escalation of their complaint to stage two. They stated that:
1. The landlord had apologised for causing upset however, they had not said that the email had caused them upset but, that they found the email of 17 May 2021 unprofessional.
2. The landlord had said in the response that it had tried to call them to discuss the complaint but did not mention the fact that the resident had returned the missed call.
3. The landlord had not provided an explanation as to why their emails dated 17 May 2021, were not responded to.
4. The landlord had not addressed their complaint point about the manager responding to the Councillor’s question that was directed at them.
5. The landlord suggested in the response that they had concern that the disclosure of their district was detrimental to their privacy but this is not the issue they had. Their issue was that the landlord responded to the question, before they had the chance to, and they did not give the landlord permission to disclose the information.
6. The landlord had not taken into consideration, the fact that they had previously made formal complaints to it in the past which had exhausted the complaints procedure.
7. The landlord had not provided a point of contact to escalate to the complaint to.
The resident reiterated that as an outcome to the complaint, they wanted an apology from the staff member who sent the email on 17 May 2021 and an answer as to why they did not respond to their emails.
By 28 July 2021, the resident had not heard from the landlord regarding the escalation request and followed up. The landlord responded the same day with an acknowledgment. It agreed to send its response by 13 August 2021.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response. It said that:
1. It found the use of the term scattergun approach appropriate but apologised that the resident found this unprofessional.
2. It apologised for the use of the word ‘upset’ in the stage one response as the resident had not said they were upset in their complaint.
3. The staff member who tried to call the resident to discuss the complaint, had confirmed that their phone was not working at the time the resident tried to return the missed call. It apologised and asked that the resident call the customer service number in future.
4. It apologised that the resident did not receive a response to their emails of 17 May 2021. Regarding the question the resident raised about whether they should formally complain, it said this would be for the resident to decide. It said that the manager who the resident complained about, did not respond to the resident’s email as they felt that it had previously been explained to the resident how to submit a complaint.
5. It confirmed that its data protection team found no personal data breach after it reviewed the manager’s email to the Councillor.
6. In relation to the resident’s point that it had not taken their previous complaints into consideration, it confirmed that it would not have expected the investigating officer to have checked for previous complaints.
7. Its process did not include giving a named person to escalate complaints to however, it confirmed that the stage one response did provide information on how the resident could escalate the complaint.
8. It acknowledged its response to the stage two complaint was delayed. It confirmed that the request had been received but was not escalated at the time of receipt.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the complaint. They said in relation to the stage two response, that:
1. The landlord had not addressed the fact that the manager had responded to the question the Councillor had asked them as the resident.
2. The use of the term ‘scattergun approach’ by the manager was an unnecessary criticism.
3. The landlord had not mentioned that they had complained about caretaking previously when it responded to the stage two complaint.
4. The member of staff who responded at stage one, did not leave a voicemail or indicate that their phone was not working properly when they contacted the resident before sending the stage one response.
5. The lack of response to their emails of 17 May 2021, cannot be justified.
6. They did not complain about a personal data breach as the landlord suggested but was unhappy with the fact that the manager responded to the Councillor before they had the opportunity to do so.
7. The stage two response had been delayed and while the landlord explained why, they wanted to know what the landlord would do to prevent this same from recurring.

Assessment and findings

The resident has confirmed that this complaint is not about the standard of cleaning, but the landlord’s handling of their correspondence on 17 May 2021, which mentioned the issues with the cleaning being carried out. Though this Service notes that the resident has since submitted a separate complaint to the landlord about the standard of the cleaning.
This assessment will consider how the landlord dealt with the resident’s correspondence and the associated formal complaint.
The landlord failed to provide the resident with a response to both emails they sent on 17 May 2021. In the complaint response, the landlord accepted that it did not respond to the resident’s emails. It apologised for the lack of response and provided some explanation as to why no response was provided, particularly to the resident’s second email where they asked whether the landlord wanted them to submit a formal complaint.
Although the landlord went someway to explain the reasons why a response was not provided to the resident’s emails, its response to this issue overall was not satisfactory.
When the resident sent their email on 17 May 2021, their concern was that they had raised issues to the landlord weeks before, which had not been addressed. It is expected therefore, that the landlord would take steps to respond with an acknowledgment of the challenges the resident had getting the matters related to the communal cleaning resolved and provide information as to what would be done to deal with those issues.
In this case, the landlord did not do so and made no effort to communicate with the resident. Doing this meant the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the issues with the resident from the outset.
As well as the lack of response, the resident also complained that the manager responded to the Councillor instead without their permission, and the content of the email particularly, the disclosure of the location where they lived.
The landlord explained that the manager’s intentions in responding to the Councillor was to confirm that the resident lived within their ward and save the resident the effort of having to respond to the Councillor. Despite this intention, it is understandable that the resident may have felt dismissed as the landlord failed to respond to them directly.
The resident had concern about the content of the manager’s email and found the use of the term scattergun approach to be a criticism of their email. The term scatter gun approach is described as doing something to a lot of things or people without any organized plan, rather than doing it to particular things or people.
The resident copied in several people into their email however, did address the Caretaking Team Leader specifically. The landlord decided the approach the resident had taken to copy in various people into the email, may have impacted on its ability to respond appropriately. However, it did not demonstrate how the resident’s approach was detrimental in it providing a response to the resident’s email.
It is appreciated that the resident found the use of the word to be unprofessional. It was not particularly helpful of the landlord to say this and then not assist the resident with their issues rather corresponding with the Councillor instead.
Nevertheless, when responding to the complaint, the landlord explained why it used the term and provided an apology to the resident for the impact on them.
Overall, I find that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the correspondence that the resident sent. The landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident and explained why the manager made the decision to not respond directly to the resident. However, the reasons given do not justify the lack of response to the resident’s correspondence. This is because, the resident highlighted within their email, that issues with the cleaning were ongoing and they asked the landlord what it would be doing about those issues. The landlord made no attempt to try and resolve the issue with the resident and only responded to the Councillor. It was not fair for the landlord to not respond to the resident directly, about the issues they had raised.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that at stage two, an acknowledgment will be sent within three working days and the complainant is informed that they will receive a response within 20 working days.
The landlord had received the stage two complaint on 29 June 2021. However, the landlord failed to provide an acknowledgment within the three day period and the resident was required to prompt it for an update.
It took the landlord 25 working days to provide its stage two response, which was five days outside of the target set out in the complaints policy.
However, the landlord recognised the delay, explained the reason for the delay was due to the complaint not being escalated when the request was received and it apologised for this in its response to the complaint. I find this was an appropriate response to the shortcoming in the handling of the complaint.
The resident wants confirmation of what steps the landlord is taking to avoid this happening again. This Service notes that the landlord’s delay in responding was the result of human error, which is understood cannot always be avoided. With that said, having reviewed its complaints policy, I am satisfied that the landlord has a clear procedure for dealing with complaints.
I would encourage landlord in future, to take steps to ensure that all of its staff including, those who are not complaint officers, are familiar with the procedure for dealing with complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, I find that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the correspondence that the resident sent on 17 May 2021.
In accordance with Paragraph 53b of the Scheme, I find that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the complaint and its explanations for the approach to the resident’s correspondence, do not justify the lack of response to issues raised within the correspondence or, the decision to respond to the Councillor and not the resident.
The landlord recognised the delay in its complaint response. It offered an apology and explanation for this and this was appropriate for it to do.

Order

In recognition of the above finding of service failure, it is ordered that the landlord pay the resident £50 in recognition of its failure to respond to the resident.