Futures Housing Group Limited (202234026)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234026

Futures Housing Group Limited

15 November 2024

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 response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its call handlers.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 5 September 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
4. The landlord’s records show that the resident has been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder. Evidence submitted for the purposes of this investigation shows that she has also been diagnosed with depression and anxiety.
5. The resident made a Subject Access Request (SAR) and was subsequently provided with recordings of telephone calls between her and the landlord. On 2 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report her dissatisfaction about the conduct of its call handlers during several of the calls.
6. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 2 February 2023, as follows:
   1. During call ‘A’ you could hear she was upset and crying. She had issues with her memory so she liked to record calls to refer to them. She asked for permission to record the call and was advised no. She said the call handler should have signposted her to the SAR process to obtain copies of the calls. Instead he “agitated her on purpose” to the point where she “exploded.” She said her mental health diagnoses meant she could come across as aggressive when she was agitated and felt the call handler should have handled this better.
   2. In call ‘B’ you could hear a member of staff call the resident “awkward” and saying she was “claiming” to have mental health issues. She said she had heard previous staff talking “bad” about her, she said she could hear from their voices that they were “sick” of her. This had caused her emotional distress.
   3. During call ‘C’ the call handler paused the call while she provided her bank details but left it paused for 6 minutes. She was unhappy that the call was not recorded in its entirety.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2023. It said it had listened to the calls and had identified where improvements could be made, including:
   1. It had reminded staff of the need to always remain professional.
   2. One of the call handlers involved had left the organisation and another had moved teams.
   3. Regular call listening and coaching sessions were held for all advisors and training was ongoing.
8. On 28 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because she was unhappy with its response.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 24 March 2023, as follows:
   1. It had listened to the recordings and apologised for the resident’s experience. It said the calls highlighted were not conducted in line with its expected standards.
   2. It should have shown more empathy to the resident when she asked for permission to record the calls herself. Even though it was not standard procedure it could have done more to explain about the SAR process. This would have enabled the resident to be sent recordings of the calls rather than recording them on her own personal device. This had been fed back to the call handlers.
   3. A new policy was being put in place to make callers aware of the SAR process if a resident requested a recording.
   4. The resident had been kept on hold for 6 minutes in error due to the call being kept on pause after making a rent payment. It had fed back to the call handler for future reference.
   5. During one call there was a discussion in the background about the resident calling again and previously putting the phone down on a call handler. It had fed back to its call handlers that these conversations could not take place and to deal with residents in a professional manner. The issue regarding the comment about the resident being “awkward” was not fed back as the advisor had left prior to the stage 2 response being issued.
   6. Additional training had been provided to the call handling team by an external provider.
   7. It offered the resident a bouquet of flowers and box of chocolates as a gesture of goodwill.
10. On 31 July 2023 the resident emailed this Service to advise that she had not accepted the flowers and chocolates because she did not feel they adequately reflected how the calls had made her feel. She did not feel she had been taken seriously and was not confident the landlord had considered the impact on her mental health. The complaint became one we could investigate on 12 March 2024.

Events post internal complaints process

11. On 17 July 2024 the landlord conducted a further review of the resident’s complaint. It identified that it should have offered the resident compensation for the distress caused by its failures and offered her £100 to put things right.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

12. The landlord’s code of conduct requires its staff to:
    1. Uphold and promote its vision, objectives and values. Its objectives include being customer centric.
    2. Give the highest possible standard of service to residents, team members and others with whom they work.
13. Its complaints and compliments policy (complaints policy) says that it will provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
14. Its compensation policy says that if it feels a resident has not received the service it would like to have provided, it may offer a discretionary payment or goodwill gesture. These payments may be gift vouchers, flowers or something relevant to the resident.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its call handlers.

15. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord carried out a thorough investigation of the resident’s complaint by listening to the calls to conduct a meaningful assessment of its performance.
16. It was open and transparent about its findings, providing reasonable explanations. It also set out appropriate actions from its learning to improve its service delivery.
17. In her stage 1 complaint to the landlord of 2 February 2023 the resident set out her mental health issues and the impact the calls had on her emotional wellbeing. She also provided medical documentation including a letter from her doctor dated 1 September 2020. The letter stated that the resident had a history of anxiety and depression. It said that she could become “panicky” over any unexpected stress and that due to her anxiety she could come across as aggressive.
18. There is no evidence that the landlord took this into account when assessing the level of distress caused to the resident. It failed to have regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, its submission to this Service regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities shows it has not updated its records to reflect the information provided in the medical letter. This is a record keeping failure. Accurate record keeping will help to ensure the landlord meets its commitment to take a customer centric approach.
19. The Ombudsman’s position is that a positive complaint handling culture means a landlord should “pay compensation in cases where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact”. The landlord acknowledged that the service it provided was below its standards. The landlord’s offer of a goodwill gesture of flowers and chocolates was not proportionate to the distress caused to the resident.
20. This Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to review its response to try and put right its evident failings. However, it did not revisit the matter of compensation for well over a year after its final complaint response. This has impacted on the degree to which the offer put right the failings.
21. The landlord’s failure to fully consider the detriment caused to the resident and its record keeping failure amounts to maladministration. The landlord has been offered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

22. The landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses appropriately within time.
23. The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that a complaint should be resolved at the earliest opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues and what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 16 February 2023 was brief and did not reflect that a thorough investigation had been carried out. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 24 March was more comprehensive and an appropriate complaint response. While this was a positive step it was inappropriate that this was not the case at stage 1 of the process.
25. The Code says that landlords must confirm the complaint definition and the decision on the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to set out the complaint definition. They also failed to confirm whether the complaint was upheld or not. The lack of clarity makes it difficult to assess whether the landlord’s decision making was entirely appropriate in the circumstances.
26. The landlord’s failure amounts to service failure because there was a minor failure in the service it provided. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £75 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the failure may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its call handlers.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

29. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £225 compensation comprised of:
       1. £150 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its call handlers. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has offered if this has already been paid.
       2. £75 for the adverse effect of its complaint handling failures.
    3. Update its vulnerability records for the resident to ensure it captures all her relevant medical information.
    4. Evidence of compliance with the orders should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

30. The landlord should consider reviewing its compensation policy to ensure compensation, rather than gestures of goodwill, is offered where there has been a failure of service.