Gravesham Borough Council (202117844)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117844

Gravesham Borough Council

27 May 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority.
  2. The resident had historically raised a number of issues regarding ASB from his neighbour, including noise nuisance. On 16 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that it had received reports of ASB by him, from another resident. It noted that the resident and his visitors had been alleged to have used abusive and threatening language, acted in an intimidating manner towards another resident and been involved in an ASB incident. The landlord confirmed that the complaint was currently an allegation but that the issue would be monitored. It confirmed that breaches of the tenancy agreement could result in legal action being taken against the resident. It added that a member of the resident’s household was not currently registered as living permanently at the address and said it would send an ‘adding occupant’ form.
  3. The resident initially raised a complaint in April 2021 about the letter he had received and the landlord’s handling of the matter. He explained that he had been given little information about the allegation and had been told by a member of staff that the letter was self-explanatory which he did not feel was appropriate. He added that he did not want to be contacted by the member of staff responsible and felt that the members of staff involved in sending the letter should be held responsible for their actions and removed from their positions. He added that he had asked for a face-to-face meeting to discuss the allegations but this had not been arranged. He explained that the person not registered as living at the address was his son who had lived at the property since birth. He also wanted to know the name of the visitor to his property who allegedly used threatening language. He added that the matter had caused a negative impact on his mental health.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the correct process had not been followed and that a member of staff would usually be expected to contact an alleged perpetrator by phone prior to a warning letter being sent to provide them with the opportunity to discuss the allegations. It further explained that it was assumed that the resident was aware of the counter-allegations of ASB made against him as there was a detailed history of ASB reports made by the resident against his neighbour. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It noted that a meeting regarding the allegations had been promised but there had been some miscommunication and this had not been arranged. It confirmed that the meeting went ahead on 9 June 2021 and confirmed that another member of staff had since taken over the ASB case in view of the resident’s assertion that he did not want to speak to the staff members who sent the letter.
  5. The landlord added that the allegation made no reference to visitors and the named perpetrators were the resident and his son. The member of staff had assumed that the resident’s son was a visitor as he was not recorded as living at the address. It also confirmed that its system had now been updated to reflect this. It explained that the member of staff would usually be expected to make enquiries but this had not happened which led to the mistaken identity of the resident’s son. It confirmed that it had taken steps to ensure that internal procedures were adjusted to require cross-department working prior to community safety interventions taking place.
  6. The landlord confirmed that the letter was approved by two members of staff, one of whom had since left the business. It had spoken to the other member of staff and confirmed that a review into how ASB cases were dealt with was taking place which would include the content of any letters. It explained that it would also be providing internal feedback to staff members to ensure that ASB allegations were not dealt with in this way again.
  7. It apologised for the delay in issuing its stage three complaint response and confirmed that staff members had followed the correct process in relation to the other stages of the complaints process. It further explained that a stage two response would usually be sent by the director of the service area responsible, this was handled by another director of service with internal support as the relevant member of staff was absent. It offered the resident £175 compensation, comprised of £50 for the delay in responding at stage three and £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the letter and the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord given the length of time and time and trouble he had spent pursuing the matter. He also wanted staff members involved in the handling of the matter to be held accountable for their actions and removed from their positions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It should be noted that this report specifically relates to the letter the landlord sent to the resident regarding the allegations of ASB made against him and its handling of the associated complaint. There was a separate ASB case opened in relation to the allegations which was ongoing throughout, and following, the complaints process and the resident had also made reports of ASB from his neighbour which provides additional context. However, as these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these aspects through its complaints process. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding these issues if he has concerns about the landlord’s handling of these matters. He may approach the Ombudsman again if he remains dissatisfied once he has completed the landlord’s internal complaint process.
  2. In the resident’s submissions to the Ombudsman he stated that he wanted several members of staff to be held accountable for their actions and removed from their positions accordingly. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. When investigating a complaint about a landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated Orders and Recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. However, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, aside from any disciplinary action against individual staff members.

The landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for responding to reports of ASB affecting the properties it managed in a timely manner. The policy does not outline the order of any specific actions the landlord should take in response to reports of ASB, but confirms that warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts and legal action may be taken against perpetrators of ASB. The landlord’s tenancy management policy states that in line with the tenancy agreement, a tenant must not cause antisocial behaviour. It confirms that if a tenant breaches the agreement, a member of staff would contact the resident to discuss the breach and identify ways to remedy the issue. The landlord would usually be expected to contact an alleged perpetrator of ASB prior to sending any written warnings, to ensure that they are aware of the allegations made and have the opportunity to discuss their perspective.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that the correct process was not followed and that the letter sent by the landlord on 16 April 2021 regarding allegations of ASB made against the resident was not appropriate. The landlord has acknowledged that it should have contacted the resident by phone prior to sending a letter which it had not done. It also noted that the member of staff responsible had not undertaken relevant enquiries in relation to who lived at the property and had failed to have a detailed discussion about the allegations with the resident when requested.
  3. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by arranging for a new member of staff to take over the ASB case, which was appropriate given the resident’s concerns about the staff member involved initially, conducting a meeting where the resident had the opportunity to discuss the allegations and acknowledging the miscommunication which led this meeting to be delayed. It also offered £125 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the letter and the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter. The landlord also demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by confirming that internal feedback had been provided to staff members and that an internal review would be taking place in regard to how it handled reports of ASB which included the wording of letters sent to alleged perpetrators to avoid similar issues occurring in the future.
  5. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) which states that amounts of between £50 and £250 are proportionate where the Ombudsman has found service failure which had an impact on the resident but did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. This includes circumstances where there has been a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but the failure did not affect the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case, the landlord should not have sent the letter to the resident without speaking to him first, but this did not affect the overall outcome of the ASB case as the landlord did not take any further action against the resident following the letter. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at the time of the complaint it had a three-stage complaints process. At each stage, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a complaint response within ten working days of the acknowledgement. Where there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale, which should not exceed a further 10 working days. The complaints policy confirms that stage one complaints should be addressed by the department responsible for the service provided. At stage two, the complaint should be addressed by the director responsible for the service provided. At stage three, the complaint should be addressed by the chief executive.
  2. The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 21 April 2021 in relation to the letter he had received on 16 April 2021. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 26 April 2021, however the resident explained that he did not want to speak to the member of staff responsible for sending the initial ASB letter and that he did not agree with the landlord’s proposed course of action. There is no evidence to suggest that the complaint was escalated at this stage which was likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident as he needed to follow-up on a response and raise his concerns again.
  3. The resident asked for a complaint to be raised again on 27 May 2021. The landlord issued a further stage one complaint response on 24 June 2021, which was slightly outside of the response timeframe by approximately four working days. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two on 30 June 2021 and the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 July 2021, which was within a reasonable timescale.
  4. The resident asked that his complaint was escalated to stage three on 27 July 2021, however, the landlord did not provide its stage three complaint response until 22 October 2021, which was significantly outside of its response timescales by 48 working days. There is no evidence to confirm whether the resident was given regular updates on the progress of his complaint or provided with an expected response timescale. He had also needed to send multiple follow-up emails asking for a response which was likely to have caused significant inconvenience.
  5. Furthermore, in its stage three response, the landlord explained that the resident could refer his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if he remained dissatisfied with its response to his complaint. This information was incorrect as the resident’s complaint falls appropriately within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. This led the resident to spend additional time and trouble in contacting the LGSCO rather than the Housing Ombudsman to review his complaint and prevented the resident from approaching this Service at an earlier date. 
  6. The resident has also raised concern that the complaint was initially dealt with by colleagues of the staff members responsible for sending the letter. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that the stage one complaint should be dealt with by the service responsible for the issue. There is no evidence to suggest that the complaint was responded to by the individual staff member responsible and therefore the landlord followed its process correctly by referring the complaint to the department responsible for the issue.
  7.  The resident has also raised concern that his stage two complaint was dealt with by the director of a different department. The landlord has offered a reasonable explanation as to why this was the case and confirmed that where a director of service was not available, it would expect complaints to be passed to an available director of service. Whilst the resident’s concern is understandable, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was disadvantaged by the landlord’s approach as the complaint handler had received support from the relevant service area, the complaint was upheld and the stage two response was issued within a reasonable timeframe.
  8. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the delay in issuing its stage three complaint response and offering £50 compensation in view of the inconvenience caused. However, this amount is not considered proportionate given the additional failings identified and the overall time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing his complaint as a result of the landlord’s failings at stage one and stage three. The landlord should offer an additional £150 compensation to the resident in view of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This brings the total level of compensation to £200. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but this did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £50 if this has not already been paid.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £125 as previously agreed in relation to its handling of the ASB allegations made against him, if it has not already done so, as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was made on this basis.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its ASB policy and includes specific information related to the process it should follow when it receives a report of ASB in relation to one of its properties.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for both ASB investigators and complaint handlers to ensure that the correct processes are following in order to avoid similar situations in the future.