Clarion Housing Association Limited (202108764)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108764

Clarion Housing Association Limited

8 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Its staff’s communication about the resident.
    2. The resident’s personal data.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaints body.
  3. As part of the complaint the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her personal data. We are unable to adjudicate on this matter, as this is not under the remit of this Service. Matters relating to alleged breaches of the data protection Act and the management of individuals personal data are under the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The resident can contact the ICO for advice regarding pursuing this aspect of her complaint further if she wishes to.

 

 

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident referred to an anti-social behaviour case when she raised concerns to the landlord about staff communication about her. She also explained that the landlord did not inform her about the counter-allegations of anti-social behaviour made by her neighbour.
  2. For clarity, this Service will not consider or make a determination on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports or the counter allegations against her. This is because all correspondence the Ombudsman has seen in relation to her complaint relates to staff communication about the resident rather than the associated anti-social behaviour case. Rather, this Service will consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice in relation to how it handled the complaint regarding staff communication about the resident.
  3. From the information submitted to this Service, the resident’s complaint did not include the handling of anti-social behaviour reports. In her correspondence to this Service dated 13 July 2021, she specified that her complaint was about the handling of the landlord’s staff communication about her and personal data. For this reason, while the Ombudsman has reviewed all information provided and will refer to the anti-social behaviour for context, this will not be investigated as part of the resident’s complaint to our service.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. The landlord’s records show that a letter was emailed to the resident on 16 February 2021 in response to a complaint she had raised about anti-social behaviour in her building. The landlord explained to the resident as it had discussed in a telephone conversation with her, that enquiries had been conducted with neighbours in the building. Police had carried out spot checks and no other residents had reported any ASB concerns to the landlord. The landlord explained that the police updated it regarding the spot checks carried out as they had noticed several cigarette butts near the entrance of the block. The landlord explained that it would put a sign at the entrance of the block to ask people to smoke away from the door and dispose of their cigarettes appropriately.
  3. On 12 March 2021, the landlord emailed a letter to the resident to acknowledge her anti-social behaviour report about noise nuisance from her neighbour. The landlord explained that it is not always able to investigate every incident reported as many prove to be one off complaints of noise. The resident was asked to speak to the neighbour about their behaviour in a calm and polite manner as this can sometimes solve the problem. She was advised that the landlord would review the ASB case in three weeks’ time to see if there have been any further reports from the resident or any other neighbours affected.
  4. The landlord emailed a letter to the resident on 1 April 2021 and explained that no further action would be taken regarding the anti-social behaviour issues she had reported. The resident was advised that if the local authority’s Environmental Health department decide that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur, it must serve a noise abatement notice. This would then allow the landlord to consider what tenancy action is appropriate, based upon the evidence. The resident was provided with the contact details of the appropriate agency that would advise the resident about the evidence needed to investigate her concerns.
  5. On 12 May 2021, the resident called the landlord to log a complaint. She explained that staff working for the landlord had been slanderous in an email sent to other agencies when it was stated that she was malicious and vexatious and that a stalking and harassment case was brought against her by a neighbour. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether this is the same neighbour she had made an ASB report about. The resident explained that this would have an impact on her work as she was of good standing in the community. She further explained that contrary to what staff had mentioned about her ASB reports, she had medical needs and evidence to support a housing move as her property was not suitable because of her disability, as explained in a telephone call to this Service.
  6. On 12 May 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident via email to acknowledge her complaint.
  7. Evidence provided by the landlord indicates that on 17 May 2021 and 18 May 2021, internal emails were circulated by staff members explaining that the email that the resident had raised a complaint about, was sent out on 7 April 2021, and the recipients of the email were individuals working for the landlord. It was further mentioned that the comments that were made in the email, were in relation to findings made by a staff member who maintained that they stood by their comments as this was part of their findings in respect of the ASB case. However, the internal email also mentioned that the resident complained that the staff member who sent the email on 7 April 2021, also alleged that the resident only raised anti-social behaviour reports because she wanted to be moved from her current property.
  8. Further evidence from the landlord shows that the resident had a telephone conversation with the landlord on 17 May 2021 in which she explained that she had an email trail from the landlord in which an employee stated that she is challenging and operatives do not want to attend her property. The records show that the resident explained in the telephone conversation with the landlord that she had refused to allow too many operatives going into the property at the same time because of COVID restrictions. She explained she is disabled and there was no room for four operatives and her husband to be in a small space. She explained it was unfair for staff to refer to her as “challenging” because she had never had any problems with the landlord’s operatives who had attended her property. The resident claimed this was defamation of her character. She explained that in the email trail mentioned above, a staff member stated that the resident only raised ASB issues so that she could be moved from her current property.
  9. The landlord’s records show that on 1 June 2021, the resident called the landlord regarding her complaint as she had not received any information. The resident requested an update regarding her complaint.
  10. The landlord emailed a stage one complaint response to the resident on 3 June 2021. The email explained that she had made a complaint about noisy children and a parent shouting at them. It was concluded in the email that since the resident had given little detail, reports of this nature were unlikely to meet the definition of a statutory nuisance. The landlord further explained that with regard to the issues about staff conduct, this was being fully investigated in line with its internal procedures. The resident was reminded that she raised concerns about emails sent by the landlord to other agencies.
  11. In its complaint response, the landlord also referred to an email sent on 13 April 2021 by it to another agency, which the resident had mentioned that she found offensive, defamatory, malicious and inappropriate. It noted that she had approached a solicitor who had been provided with copies of the emails. The landlord stated that staff members had confirmed that the email dated 13 April 2021, was an internal email to the landlord’s employees only. Therefore, there was no evidence of a data breach on the landlord’s part as the email was disclosed to another agency without the landlord’s permission.
  12. It was further explained by the landlord, that the contents of the email were factual findings as a result of various investigations into the resident’s ASB claims. There was no intention to attack her, nor were any comments meant in a derogatory way. The landlord apologised for any upset or distress this may have caused the resident. The email was provided to internal employees only to ensure all staff members were fully updated on the circumstances of the ASB case as well as to ensure consistency and accuracy of records.
  13. The landlord confirmed it had investigated issues with the staff communication and that the issues the resident raised were being treated seriously. However, due to data protection regulations, the landlord would not be able to advise the resident regarding the outcome of internal staff investigations. However, appropriate feedback would be provided to the staff members. The resident was advised that the relevant internal procedures were followed.
  14. The resident was further advised regarding her right to escalate her case to a peer review in a telephone conversation with the landlord, on 3 June 2021. The landlord explained the complaint response letter mentioned above. It further explained that if she was not satisfied with the complaint response, she could reply within 20-working days explaining why she remained dissatisfied and what she wanted as an outcome.
  15. The landlord’s records show that the resident explained to the landlord in a phone call on 3 June 2021 that she wanted to escalate her complaint to a stage two complaint review.
  16. The resident later emailed the landlord and made a request to have her case escalated to a peer review on 3 June 2021 as she explained that the landlord’s findings were not accurate. She explained that she had not received an explanation as to why a staff member wrote the things they wrote about the resident in the email. The resident wanted this investigated as the emails were now with a third party. The resident also explained that she had still not heard anything about the alleged stalking and harassment that staff referred to in the email. The resident wanted to know which staff members were afraid to attend her property and why. She requested an apology and explained how the contents of the email could affect her work with other agencies, which she had carried out for a number of years. She explained that the words by the staff members written in the email had caused her undue stress, upset and anguish and left her questioning her character.
  17. On 21 June 2021, the resident called the landlord to request an update regarding the outcome her stage two complaint. She was not able to speak to the relevant member of staff handling this and therefore, requested a call back.
  18. The landlord called the resident on 22 June 2021.  Records show that during the telephone conversation, the resident raised her concerns about views expressed in the emails that had been shared as the staff concerned had not actually met her. She was advised by the landlord that senior staff would look at the comments and decide if these should have been made or were made in the way that conformed with relevant policy and procedure. The resident was advised that there was some element of judgement made by staff depending on the information and behaviour they encountered from residents. The resident was also advised that the landlord would aim to respond within 20 working days by letter sent to her email.
  19. The landlord provided a Peer Review Final Response to the resident on 13 July 2021. The landlord reiterated its position as previously explained in its stage one response. It explained that it had reviewed the email sent by its staff and agreed that some of the comments were subjective insomuch as they were assumptions of the facts of the case rather than actual facts. The landlord apologised and advised that it would be following up with the staff member concerned.
  20. The landlord explained that the comments were made as part of an overall view of the case between two agencies working together and the information that was shared was part of a normal information sharing protocol. The landlord acknowledged that the wording should have been more appropriate, but staff have to make assumptions in some cases to allow them to work ASB cases. The landlord further stated “should that assumption have been voiced in an email and the answer is no. So again, please accept my apologies”. The staff members involved had been spoken to and reminded that their record keeping, and correspondence should be of the highest quality and not include personal or subjective comments. The resident was advised that this concluded the final stage of the internal complaints process.
  21. The resident contacted this Service on 13 July 2021 and explained that she did not accept the response from the landlord. The resident explained that the contents of the email referred to above were unfounded and untrue and were an assassination her character which was damaging to the work she had undertaken for many years.
  22. The landlords records show that on 29 July 2021, an internal email was circulated stating that the resident had requested the outcome of the peer review as she had not received the one sent to her on 13 July 2021. The landlord advised staff to email the peer review to the resident as requested.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says “All staff should respond to ASB complaints in a sympathetic and non-judgmental manner to ensure that they are truly adopting a victim-centred approach.”
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy says “Compensation payments will be considered on a case-by-case basis but where we have made mistakes we will take ownership for them.”
  3. The compensation policy goes on to say: “When compensation is offered, we will consider “failure of staff to follow the landlord’s published policies and procedures”.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy highlights that awards of £50 to £250 can be offered for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.

The landlord’s handling of its staff’s communication about the resident

  1. Following the resident logging a complaint on 12 May 2021 about the landlord’s staff communication about her, she received a response from the landlord acknowledging its shortcomings and explaining that staff should have used more appropriate wording. It was, however, inappropriate that that the landlord stated that its staff have to make assumptions in some cases. This is not in line with the landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy which states that when a report is made by a resident, a victim-centred approach should be adopted by staff when handling cases. This is a service failure as the landlord did not comply with its anti-social behaviour policy above which requires staff to respond in a non-judgmental manner.
  2. It is noted that the landlord apologised for the distress this had caused to the resident, however, it failed to use the opportunity to demonstrate that there were lessons learned from the complaint to improve its service and in accordance with its principles in the complaints handling policy, to provide a quality service by putting things right.
  3. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that reasonable steps have been taken to review current policies and procedures, regarding internal communication about residents and their ASB cases. Additionally, there is no evidence to indicate that there has been implementation of clear guidelines by the landlord on how staff communicate about residents as part of the landlord’s principles of providing a quality service as well as fully and accurately recording details, actions and investigations at all stages.
  4. While the landlord has taken ownership of some errors made and apologised, it did not offer compensation in this case. The landlord should have demonstrated that it was willing to put things right, by using its discretion in accordance with its compensation policy above. The landlord should have offered the resident compensation in accordance with its policy for the failure of its staff to follow its published policies and procedures and in recognition of the upset and distress this caused to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy highlights the remedies in the range of £50 to £250 which can be offered for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. The evidence provided by the resident in the landlord’s correspondence, demonstrates that the comments made by the staff in the email chain, had an impact on the resident and caused her distress as the information was shared by a third party and the resident was concerned that this may affect her reputation in her line of work within the community.
  5. In view of this, the landlord has been ordered to pay £250 below. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy as well as the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance published on the website, which also suggests compensation of between £50 to £250 in similar circumstances to those mentioned in the landlord’s compensation policy. Remedies in the range of these amounts may be for cases where the impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its staff’s communication about the resident.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not follow its policy when its staff failed to comply with a victim-centred approach while handling the resident’s case. There were subjective comments made by a member of staff while dealing with the resident’s ASB case. The landlord inappropriately justified its actions in its peer review final complaint response when the resident was advised that staff have to make assumptions at times when dealing with anti-social behaviour cases.
  2. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learned lessons from its failure by ensuring that it put in place processes that focus on a victim-cantered approach when its staff are handling anti-social behaviour incidents reported to it.
  3. The landlord did offer the resident appropriate compensation in recognition of the distress and upset caused to her, in line with its policy above which aims to offer compensation on a case-by-case basis where there have been failings by the landlord to follow its policies and procedures correctly.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and upset caused when its staff did not follow its published policy and procedure.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider reviewing its anti-social behaviour policy to express clear, structured victim-centred responses to residents when they make an anti-social behaviour reports to the landlord.