Camden Council (201913372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913372

Camden Council

4 February 2021

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

1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint about the conduct of a staff member.
2. The resident also complains about the landlord’s decision not to escalate the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident has been a secure tenant of the property, a flat within a block which is owned by the landlord a local council, since 1996. She has been represented in this complaint by her son who would be referred to as the representative, excepting where it is not necessary to make a distinction.

Summary of events

4. The representative made a formal complaint to the landlord on 3 October 2019. He emphasised that he wished to complain solely about the conduct of a staff member of the landlord. This was mainly regarding an inspection visit to the property of 10 October 2018. He stated that he had found the staff member’s communications on the day to be ‘offensive, aggressive and intimidating,’ causing him to cease further contact for the progression of the works required to the property. The behaviour of the staff member, and another one who was in attendance, agitated his elderly mother (the resident) and disabled brother.
5. The representative narrated that he had refused to complete a survey regarding the roof and fire exit door as the staff member had stated that he felt threatened by the representative’s insistence on another staff member becoming the singular point of contact (SPOC) for the repairs. The representative stated that it was his wish not to make a complaint regarding repairs to the window frame of the front room as the staff member whom he wished to be the SPOC had been most helpful in trying to resolve the issues.
6. The representative had reported repairs required to the window frame for the front room, as well as other parts of the property, on 30 July 2018. He also spoke to other staff members in August 2018, chased this in September 2018 and again on 7 October 2018. An inspection visit was agreed with the landlord on 8 October 2018, and took place within 30 minutes of the call, although the family felt pressured to accept the appointment. The staff member whom he is complaining about visited and inspected the property. He advised that they could make a claim against a neighbouring hospital, which was engaged in a building project, for pre-existing repairs issues.
7. The representative felt that they were being encouraged to be fraudulent and the staff member was inappropriate in his communications. His sister, who was present with other family members, stated that the staff member told her to inform the representative that he should ‘stop emailing’ the landlord. The resident raised various queries regarding the staff member as follows:
   1. Should all housing issues be passed through him as he suggested?
   2. Should he have tried to persuade them to attribute responsibility for pre-existent repairs to the hospital undertaking the new project?
   3. The staff member had referred to them as problem tenants. Thus, the representative wanted to know whether the issues where not due to the landlord’s inadequate management and service?
   4. The staff member appeared to want to prevent him from communicating the longstanding issues with the landlord; should he have the right to do so?
   5. Why did the staff member threaten to close the job when the resident called him later to query the delay and repeated inspections?
   6. Why did he want to conduct another site survey as he did on 10 October 2018, after the visit of 8 October 2018, despite the previous inspections and the inconvenience to the resident and her family?
   7. What is the identity of the female staff member who accompanied the staff member being complained about and why did she accompany this staff member?
   8. Why did he reopen the issues discussed in the difficult conversation which he had with the representative by telephone on 9 October 2018 during the visit of 10 October 2018?
   9. Did the staff member have a grudge against the representative and the family because they are ‘poor social housing tenants house in prime locations?’
   10. Why was the staff member challenging and argumentative; had he been trained to ‘take this approach?’
   11. Could the landlord provide a copy of its policy on painting and decoration?
   12. The staff member questioned the various and extensive repairs issues which was shown to him during the visit. Was it his objective to limit the repairs to be undertaken to the property?
   13. Was the staff member usually ‘intimidating and overwhelming’ in dealing with other tenants of the landlord?
   14.  As other windows in the property had significant damage to the frame, why was the damage to the resident’s bedroom window frame stated to be due to condensation and lack of ventilation? The window frames in other blocks in the area had similar damage and disrepair; was this also due to condensation and lack of ventilation? 
   15. Why did the staff member refer to the resident’s tenancy agreement as she has never been in breach of her tenancy since 1992?
   16. Why did the staff member object so strongly to the representative’s suggestion of his preferred SPOC, to the point of shouting him down and being intimidating? Why did he behave in a manner as to unsettle the disabled brother and the resident?
   17. Why did the staff member feel threatened as he stated that he was; did he report to the landlord and provide documentary evidence of this; could the evidence be provided to the resident?
   18. Why did he close down the job for repairs of the windows?     
8. The representative stated that he had been reasonable in his communications with the landlord and was mindful of costs related to the repairs. Hardly any repairs had been undertaken to the property in 40 years and they had reported several issues in the past 20 years. He was seeking a response to the 12 complaints points and 20 questions he had asked in this letter. He wanted the repair job to be reopened and for repairs to be completed before Christmas. He wanted the landlord to appoint his preferred SPOC and did not wish to deal with the staff member whom he had complained about. He was also seeking copies of survey reports following the visits of 8 and 10 October 2018.
9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in an email to the representative, of 10 October 2019. It stated that the complaint was regarding events occurring 12 months previously. Having checked its database, it could see that he had sent in concerns about heating on 28 November 2018, thus it was not clear why he had waited so long to complain about an event occurring on 10 October 2018. Therefore, it requested that he clarified the reasons for the delay and asked him to send copies of correspondence in support of his assertions. It explained that a response will be provided in 20 working days, which was an extension of its 10 working days’ time scale, as it had to investigate the issue.
10. In its decision of 3 November 2019, the landlord stated that the inspection of the property was undertaken on 30 July 2018 and an assessment of the issue took place on 1 August 2018. The contractor at the time referred the repairs to a specialist window company thus another visit took place on 13 August 2018, this was to ensure the safety of the windows. The specialist company went out of business, thus, there was a delay on the issue until 29 September 2018 when the representative spoke to a staff member. The landlord stated that it was unclear why its contractor did not contact the representative further at the time.
11. The staff member who visited on 8 and 10 October 2018 is a qualified building surveyor. His notes of 8 October 2018 indicated that the representative’s sister, who was present during the visit, was uncertain about which window required renewal. She attempted to call the representative, but he was not available. She thought that it could be a living room or bedroom window. The staff member inspected the four bay windows in the living room and found that repairs were required, and they did not require renewal. The bedroom window, however, appeared to require renewal. The representative’s sister asked if the landlord could return on the Monday to give them time to identify the actual window.
12. The landlord provided the identity and job description of the other staff member who had been present during the visits of 10 October 2018. This appointment had been confirmed with the representative on 9 October 2018. The staff member undertook this visit due to the need to identify the windows requiring renewal. During this visit the living room, bathroom and a bedroom window were inspected, as access had not been granted to the other two bedrooms. 
13. The staff member advised the family about cracks in the property and explained that there were similar cracks in other flats due to a contractor’s ongoing works. He had advised them about eligibility for compensation as this was usual in the circumstances. He had advised, rather than insisted, on being the SPOC for ease of undertaking the works and this was due to his role.
14. The staff member’s note of the visit, dated 11 October 2018, stated that repairs were required to all the windows inspected. He also noted that he saw no evidence of water ingress but could see that there was condensation and mould to all the windows and found that this was the primary cause of damage. The landlord stated that its records showed that it had tried on several occasions to contact the representative to arrange for the works and had closed it on 10 January 2019 due to no contact. The landlord concluded by asking the resident to contact a named supervisor to arrange a convenient appointment for the repairs.
15. On 24 November 2019 the representative requested for the escalation of the complaint. He stated that the landlord had made little reference to the staff member whose conduct he was complaining about and appeared to have dealt with the window repairs instead. It had not responded to the last part of his questions which he considered the most important aspect. He repeated the questions and stated that he still wanted answers.
16. The representative stated that the landlord had not provided the survey reports which he had requested although it had outlined the surveyor’s internal recordings. He was not happy that he had been asked to contact a supervisor for the repairs and stated that the landlord should contact him instead as the issue has been ongoing for 16 months and he had been in contact with a considerable number of its staff members. It was his intention to refer his complaint to another senior staff member if he was not contacted regarding the repairs. He had contacted his preferred SPOC, who assigned him a customer services personnel but there had also been issues with communication, resulting in him chasing this staff member.
17. The representative stated that the landlord had exceeded the time scale for responding to his complaint. There should have been a response within 20 working days as it had extended this by 10 working days. This meant that the response should have been provided by 1 November 2019. He had not received it until 7 November 2019.
18. The representative raised further issues as he wanted the landlord to clarify the role of its repairs team and housing management. This was because his housing officer refused to get involved in repairs over the years. He requested for the link between the two staff members who had conducted the visit of 10 October 2018. He stated that there was extensive damage to the window and walls which had been worsened by water ingress. There was also electrical wiring at the bottom of the skirting.
19. In its response of 26 November 2019, the landlord stated that it would be dealing with the repairs to the windows and would be looking into the representative’s further reports of damage to the walls and skirting. He had been contacted recently regarding the repairs and it would await his response regarding availability for an inspection. It also clarified that the only reports in its possession where the internal notes made on the inspection of the windows. Considering the length of time, from the events complained of to the representative making the formal complaint, the landlord concluded that there would be no merit in investigating the matter further. It had therefore decided not to review the case and apologised for the delay in providing the previous decision.

Assessment and findings

20. The representative raised multiple queries on the visit and the landlord provided a considerably shorter response to the issues. In narrating the events in this case, this report has also provided a summary of the issues raised by the representative. Several of the issues raised were statements of the representative’s perceptions of the situation which he expressed as questions to the landlord. This Service finds that it would have been impractical for the landlord to provide responses to some of the queries, particularly where they were regarding the motives and impressions of the staff member. These would include queries about why his attitude was intimidating and how he viewed the family as social housing tenants.
21. Whilst the landlord is expected to provide a response to complaint letters, there is no obligation for it to do so in as much detail as requested in the complaint letter. It is reasonable for landlords to utilise their discretion and provide as appropriate a response as is possible in the circumstances of each case.
22. The landlord provided the resident with a response which largely centred on the window repairs as, although the representative mostly raised queries about the staff members conduct, the issues were not in isolation. The reason for the visits was the window repairs and, the representative had made no reports to the landlord about events occurring during the visit for approximately one year afterwards. It was reasonable that the landlord, therefore, assumed that the representative was seeking a resolution to the repairs which remained outstanding. 
23. The representative requested reports made during the inspection visits and the landlord included parts of notes made by the staff member on his findings in its decision. It is not for this Service to prescribe the format of reports to be made and kept by landlords. If the representative remains dissatisfied with the nature of records provided by the landlord, he may wish to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for advice on his rights in this regard.
24. The representative also requested for the landlord’s policy on painting and decorations. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the tenancy handbook which applies to the resident’s tenancy. It is noted that the resident does not have her tenancy agreement, although it is not clear if this has always been the case. The tenancy agreement, together with the tenancy handbook, should be the guiding documents on decorations and other repairs and maintenance responsibilities for the property. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to discuss the availability of documents relevant to her tenancy.
25. The landlord clarified the reasons for the staff member’s communications on the SPOC and stated that it was ‘not an instruction’. This aspect of the complaint is representative of the nature of most issues raised in this complaint. To clarify further, there is a disparity in the version of events stated by both parties. Without any verifiable independent account, this Service is unable to arrive at a conclusion on the issue. This is not to negate the representative’s expressions of the feelings of the resident and other members of the family during the visits. However, it is impossible for this Service to decide whether their perception of the staff member’s motives, intentions and attitude were accurate.
26. The landlord provided the representative with the identity of the accompanying staff member as well as the reason for her being present during the visit of 10 October 2018. It is common practise for landlords to ensure that more than one staff member is present during inspection visits as this facilitates accuracy and objectivity in ascertaining actions required to property.
27. It was reasonable that the landlord asked the representative to contact it to arrange further appointments for the progression of the repairs. This was particularly necessary as he had not responded to follow–on communications after the visits of October 2018. Furthermore, considering the point raised in the complaint regarding short notice for visits, it was best that the resident contacted the landlord to inform it about what date and time would be most suitable for the family.
28. The landlord did not address the resident’s queries about the staff member’s statement that he was feeling threatened by the representative’s behaviour. However, if a report has been made to the landlord by the staff member it would have been the staff member’s complaint to pursue and not the resident’s. As the staff member would have been the complainant in the matter, there was no obligation on the landlord to provide the resident with the information that was sought on this aspect of the complaint.
29. The representative queried the closure of the repairs job by the staff member. The landlord’s records which have been provided to this Service indicate that it attempted to contact the resident to progress with the repairs after the visit of October 2018. It also indicates that no response was made to its communications. This is confirmed by the representative’s statement that he chose not to communicate with the staff member on the repairs. No evidence has been provided to show that the staff member took any action to prevent the progress of the works. The landlord’s records indicate that the job was closed following recordings by staff members of the landlord regarding no response by the resident.
30. In referring the complaint to this Service, the representative has mentioned that the stage one decision was not clear about the status of the complaint and did not clarify the next steps in the process. His observations are accurate, and the recommendations section below includes advice to the landlord on this point. Nonetheless, this Service concludes that the landlord provided adequate responses to the issues raised in the formal complaint as the shortcomings observed are not sufficient to warrant a finding of service failure.
31. In referring the complaint to this Service, the representative has maintained that the issue to be dealt with is the matter of the conduct of the staff member who visited the property on 8 and 10 October 2018. This Service notes that a considerable number of the representative’s queries in his complaint were regarding the communications by the staff member during the visit. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service of the issues having been reported to the landlord for approximately one year following the visit. The landlord explained, in response to the escalation request, that there had been a considerable lapse of time since the event and it was not likely to change its decision. Its complaints policy provides that it would not escalate complaints where it finds that there are no grounds to do so.
32. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states as follows: ‘The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.’ This means that residents are expected to be timely in raising issues with landlords so that investigations can be thoroughly conducted as the lapse of time would impact on the landlord being able to collate information. Furthermore, this Service is unable to rely on the memories of either party, where there has been significant lapse of time and there was no independent witness to corroborate any assertions on the issue.
33. In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme as stated above, this Service would usually not consider a matter where a formal complaint has not been made to the landlord after 6 months of the event. In this case, the landlord’s Complaints Policy provides that it will deal with complaints made within 12 months of ‘the date of the incident’. This Service considered the adequacy of its response to the resident due to the landlord’s longer timescale.
34. Considering the nature of the issues raised by the representative, it was appropriate that the landlord requested for him to send copies of communications with the staff member he had complained about or with the relevant department, following the visits to the property. It was also reasonable that the landlord requested for more time to investigate the issue as there was no evidence of an on-going disagreement with the resident over the visits to the property and it had received no response to its communications to the representative with respect to the repairs. The documents provided to this Service do not indicate that the landlord received any documentation to support further consideration of the matter.
35. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing a decision on the complaint in response to the representative’s escalation request. It is agreed that the decision was made two days beyond the landlord’s stated deadline and received a further four days later. The landlord should have acknowledged that it was out of time in making its stage one decision but did not do so. It, however, utilised the opportunity of the response to the escalation request to rectify this by apologising for its shortcoming. This Service finds that the apology was sufficient resolution in the circumstances.
36. This Service concludes that there was no failure in the landlord’s decision not to escalate the matter. It was appropriate that it explained the basis of its decision. It was also fair that it closed the complaint at the time, having acknowledged that there would have been no change to its position on the issue. It therefore gave the resident the opportunity of seeking an external review of the case without unnecessarily prolonging the process.

Determination (decision)

37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. Response to the resident’s formal complaint about the conduct of a staff member
    2. Decision not to escalate the complaint.

Reasons

38. The landlord provided responses which this Service considers as having sufficiently addressed the issues raised in the formal complaint.
39. The landlord clarified that its position on the issue was unchanged, thus, it would not review the matter. Its decision not to review was in adherence to its complaints policy.

Recommendations

40. The landlord should endeavour to ensure that its complaints decisions are clear about the status of the matter and complainants are clear about their next steps.
41. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to discuss any issues on the availability of her tenancy agreement and related documents.