Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202123375)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123375

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

9 March 2023

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 response to the resident’s reports about:
1. a text sent about a repair.
2. the removal of a washing line.
3. anti-social behaviour (ASB).
4. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has resided at the property since 1998. The property is a three bedroom flat.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she is disabled. However there are no vulnerabilities recorded with the landlord.
The landlord operates a three-stage complaint policy;
1. “front line resolution”, is an informal stage whereby the resident can express dissatisfaction and then the landlord will act to try to provide an immediate resolve
2. stage one is the first formal stage whereby the resident can expect an acknowledgement within two working days, and a full response within ten working days. If this is not possible within ten days, then the response due can be extended by a further ten working days
3. stage two is the final stage of the complaint process. The landlord says it will acknowledge requests for escalation within two working days. A panel hearing will then be organised within 15 working days, and a response will follow in a further five working days. A final response can be extended by a further ten days.
The landlord’s complaint policy it explains that it ‘retains the right to restrict access to the policy where it deems the complaint to be persistent abusive or reasonable’. This includes making unjustified complaints about staff who are trying to deal with an issue, and requesting to have them replaced.
The policy advises that if it feels that the nature of the complaint meets its threshold for being inappropriately persistent, abusive or unreasonable then it:
1. reserves the right to refuse to deal with the complaint, or deal with it in a different manner
2. can write to the resident imposing restrictions with a ‘warning level 1’. If a pattern of behaviour has been established, a neighbourhood manager will contact the complainant in writing and explain why their behaviour is causing a concern, and ask them to change their behaviour.
3. can issue a ‘final warning – level 2’. If issues persist, then a head of service will issue a final letter, advising them of the way in which they can continue to engage with the landlord, giving consideration to imposing restrictions on contact
4. can impose restrictions that are ‘appropriate and proportionate’. It advises that the resident will be advised of the period time in which the restriction will be in place for
5. will consider if the behaviour improves, and if it does not, it will be reviewed in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord does not have a specific repair policy, however section 8 of its tenant handbook explains that the landlord has a responsibility to keep in good condition the structure and outside of its properties.
The landlord has an ASB policy. Within it, it states that:
1. all reports of ASB will be risk assessed to determine if an emergency response is required
2. reporters of ASB will be contacted within five days of their initial report, and an action plan agreed within a further five days
3. a decision on what action will be taken by the landlord will be put in writing within 6 weeks of the date of the initial report
4. reporters of ASB will be contacted and regularly supported throughout the process of assessment and gaining any evidence
5. the landlord will work with key stakeholders such as the police, in tackling ASB.

Summary of events

On 12 July 2021 the resident made a complaint about the landlord. Within it, she:
1. advised that she had been sent a text about a repair to her flat which she did not report. The text had thanked her for reporting the repair, informed her that it had been given routine priority and that it should be completed by 29 July 2021. The resident said this repair was ‘bogus’, and that it had been sent by a particular member of staff who she felt was racist
2. said that she felt that the landlord had housed some “idiots” where she lived, since the same member of staff became a housing manager
3. said there was a broken washing line in the communal grounds of where she lived. She stated that the same member of staff was “useless” and did not carry out appropriate checks of the scheme. The resident stated she wanted this member of staff “to be sacked, useless manager, likes getting paid but does not do her job. Worst manager ever and a racist”
4. said on 9 July 2021, her neighbour’s two daughters and grandchild were sat outside her bedroom window. She stated her neighbour was shouting from inside her flat down to her daughters, and visa versa. She said her neighbour had also been playing loud music, continuously. The resident stated she believed that she was being harassed by her neighbour “and her racist family”
5. asked the landlord who their next neighbourhood coordinator would be. She advised one member of staff lasted four months, another six months “working with the racist” [member of staff].
The landlord responded at stage one of its complaint process in a letter dated 22 July 2021. Within it, the landlord:
1. said the resident had not approached the landlord before making a formal complaint about the issues, therefore it had not had the opportunity to resolve the matter for the resident at an earlier stage
2. advised that the repair was generated by the landlord’s surveyor, and not the member of staff the resident had suggested. The surveyor had been on site during their quarterly safety inspection, and had noted that there was a leak to the downpipe outside of the residents property, so raised a repair
3. explained that when repairs are added to the system, it will auto-generate a text message. It accepted that the wording on the text message could have caused confusion and that it was exploring different text options for these scenarios
4. advised that if the resident was ever unsure of correspondence sent by the landlord, that she should contact them first to establish the facts
5. said that the washing line issue would be investigated by the landlord as a service request, and not a complaint, as it was the first time the resident was notifying it of the issue
6. explained that a member of staff would check on the washing line during their next visit, and if it was broken, would request that the resident who owns it, remove it. The landlord advised it would not instantly object to a washing line being on a grassed area, so long as it was useable and not causing a hazard. It advised it would feedback the outcome of the visit to the resident
7. said that the issue with regards to the behaviour of her neighbour playing and shouting would be investigated under their ASB policy, not complaint policy. It explained that it had asked the neighbourhood manager to look into the matter and report back. It advised in the meantime:
  1. the resident could approach the local authority, if she was concerned about the level of noise nuisance
  2. the resident could keep diary sheets to monitor the frequency of any issues
  3. that the landlord would discuss the allegations with her neighbour.
8. warned the resident about the language used within her complaint. It advised that:
  1. the racist accusations she had made against staff were not upheld, and this had already been addressed in a previous complaint
  2. the offer of mediation from the previous complaint remained, and the resident was welcome to reconsider this
  3. the resident had failed to provide any evidence that would suggest a particular member of staff was being racist. If this were to change, it would be dealt with under the landlord’s policies for staff conduct
  4. any future correspondence must be free of derogatory accusations (unless they could be substantiated), must not be aggressive in tone or writing style. This included writing in capital letters to demand the landlord does something, or referring to other residents as “idiots”
  5. the resident should refrain on using statements that could be deemed slanderous
  6. the language used by the resident was unacceptable and a breach of her tenancy agreement, and that it was her final warning
  7. if she failed to comply with the request, it could result in the landlord restricting how the resident communicates with them, and could lead to the landlord seeking enforcement action
  8. it would be willing to speak to the resident about whether she had any underlying conditions that it needed to be aware of that may be influencing her behaviour.
On the 21 August 2021, the resident responded to the landlord. She advised that:
1. she felt the stage one response was written in a ‘passive aggressive manner’
2. the landlord failed to respond to her complaint within its expected timeframes noted within its complaint policy. Though the letter was dated the 22 July 2021, it was not sent in the post, and she had to chase this. She only received a copy via email on the 28 July 2021
3. that the member of staff who had issued the stage one response, employed “useless staff” who do not follow complaints procedures
4. the landlord needed to deal with complaints in a timely manner and keep track of what complaint belongs where
5. that the washing line had still not been removed, this had never been used and had been broken for some time
6. there continued to be ASB and burglaries in the area
7. there were incidents in 2020 involving four different members of staff that have led her to believe the landlord’s staff are racist. She does not need to meet or engage with staff any further to ‘know they are racist’
8. she is disabled and her mental and physical health had been affected by the landlord’s actions
9. she denies any breaches of tenancy and feels that she is entitled to make remarks about the landlord’s staff as ‘it is a free country’.
As an outcome, the resident stated that she wanted:
1. all communication with the landlord to be in writing
2. letters sent for repairs, clearly stating what the repair is, who booked it and why it is needed
3. not to be sent repairs texts as she had not opted in for this service
4. the washing line to be removed from outside her flat
5. her neighbours to stay away from her flat windows, and to stop playing loud music.
The landlord acknowledged the residents request to escalate to stage two of their complaint process on 25 August 2021. They explained that:
1. her complaint required a panel hearing, which the landlord had 20 working days to organise and respond to the resident
2. the panel hearing would involve a member of the executive team, a board member and an appointed tenant representative
3. they would require the resident to inform them of her intentions to attend the panel hearing. If she did not want to attend, then a ‘closed’ panel hearing would take place in her absence
4. that she would be notified of the chronology pack prior to the hearing
5. that she could contact the Ombudsman with regards to her complaint.
On 30 August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and advised she was expecting two separate outcomes relating to two separate complaints. The landlord responded the same day, and explained that one complaint was being dealt with at stage zero, the other at stage one.
On the 1 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm she would not be attending the panel hearing. The landlord responded in acknowledgement of this, and reassured her that she would still receive the chronology pack prior to the hearing.
On 15 September 2021, the resident emailed the customer engagement officer to request the chronology pack and details of who will be involved in the decision of her case. The officer responded with details of who had attended, and explained that the hearing had already taken place that day. The hearing had been paused and would reconvene within a further two days, by the Friday. However, it did not reconvene until the 20 September 2021, the following Monday.
The resident responded to ask why the landlord had failed to provide a date of hearing or the chronology pack she had requested. The officer replied and apologised for the oversight, saying it should have been undertaken whilst she was on leave. She assured the resident that she had raised this with senior management and that ‘more robust provisions’ would be put in place in the future.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response. Within it, the landlord:
1. advised that a closed panel hearing took place on 15 September 2021, this was paused for all to deliberate the evidence and then reconvened on 20 September 2021
2. said it was not upholding the complaint with regards to the ‘bogus’ repair. It had apologised for the confusing wording of the text and had said as a lesson learnt, it would reconsider the wording of future texts as part of a wider review. It thanked the resident for bringing it to their attention
3. advised it was not upholding the resident’s complaint about the washing line. It advised that there was no evidence that the washing line had caused a disturbance, but it had since been removed and the issue considered resolved
4. said it was not upholding the residents complaint about ASB. It said that the panel could not find evidence to substantiate complaints made against her neighbour. It reassured her that it had recently employed an ASB officer to assist the housing management team in the area
5. explained that it was committed to working with the resident to address any concerns that she may have. It suggested that the resident consider mediation with the landlord and offered that they arrange for an advocate if she felt that she could benefit from support from a third party
6. advised that if the resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint, that she could contact the Ombudsman.
On the 27 November 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She advised that:
1. she found the stage one response from the landlord to be threatening. She felt that the language was inappropriate, distressing and offensive. She believed that the landlord had victimised her and demonstrated racial bias
2. the landlord had failed to explain her rights regarding its complaint procedure
3. the landlord failed to respond to the stage one response on time
4. she was not given a copy of the chronology prior to the panel hearing taking place
5. the landlord’s complaints team were “useless and provide inadequate responses”
6. the landlord failed to address her concerns effectively due to racial bias
7. as a resolution, she was seeking a written apology from the landlord and compensation for her experience, which she said caused her distress.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to a text sent about a repair

The landlord was first made aware of the text message sent about the repair from the resident’s complaint. It reviewed the information it had on its system and was able to confirm that contrary to the resident’s presumption, it had not been sent by the member of staff who she named in her complaint.
The surveyor identified during a quarterly safety inspection that a repair was required to the downpipe, and correctly referred the matter internally to have the repair raised. The landlord was proactive in raising the repair within an appropriate timescale, in line with its obligations to maintain the structure and outside of the property.
In doing so, this auto-generated a text message, intended to inform the resident that a repair had been raised and the timescale for which it could expect the repairs to be completed. It is reasonable that the landlord would want to communicate the status of a repair to residents. There is evidence that demonstrates that neither the repair nor the text message were raised by the member of staff the resident had identified in her complaint.
However, the landlord had not considered that its wording could have caused confusion where the resident had not been aware that the surveyor had attended and raised the repair. In its subsequent response, it apologised for the confusion in the wording of the text, and thanked the resident for bringing it to their attention. As a learning from this incident, it advised it will be amending future wording of text messages to make this clearer, and will update its communication methods with residents. Overall, the landlord has taken sufficient steps to put this minor issue right.

The landlord’s response to the removal of a washing line

The landlord was first made aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction about a washing line in the communal areas when she raised her complaint. It visited the property 11 working days later, and at the time deemed that it was still functional, and in an appropriate designated area for washing lines.
The landlord noted during a subsequent inspection that the washing line was broken. It identified that the owner of the washing line had recently passed away, and so took responsibility to remove it on 9 September 2021 during a period of void works.
Accordingly, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the removal of the washing line. It was obliged to inspect the location of the washing line to ensure that it was not in a precarious position. When the landlord later deemed the washing line to be beyond repair, it removed it.

The landlord’s response to ASB

The landlord’s stage one complaint response to the resident correctly advised that reports of ASB should be dealt within its ASB policy. It referred the resident to ASB information on its website and asked that the neighbourhood manager review the incident that the resident reported involving her neighbour sat outside her flat. This was an appropriate initial response by the landlord in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy advises that when it receives an allegation of ASB, that the resident will be contacted within five working days to agree an action plan, and contact made within six weeks to confirm it in writing. The landlord’s response at stage one of its complaint process set about reassuring the resident what action it would take as a result of her reports, this included speaking to her neighbour. Whilst it was proactive to have considered the next steps of the resident’s report of ASB, it is not clear if this constituted or replaced the action plan referenced in its ASB policy.
The landlord’s policy states that it works with key stakeholders in tackling ASB. Its records show that the police attended to speak with the resident’s neighbour, and she denied the allegations. The landlord advised that the police had informed it that they would not be pursuing the matter further. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the local authority with regards to the loud music as it has the responsibility to investigate noise that may constitute a statutory nuisance. It gave suitable advice to the resident about keeping diary sheets should she wish the landlord to investigate the matter further.
Overall, there was no maladministration of the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It’s responses were appropriate in line with its policy, and assured the resident that it would investigate the matter further if evidence came to light to suggest that there had been a breach of her neighbour’s tenancy agreement. Without any further evidence, support from the police or diary sheets, the landlord could not reasonably have been able to take any further action against her neighbour. It appropriately reassured the resident that it had since employed specialist staff to deal with any reports of ASB in the area and would continue to monitor any concerns.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident has stated that she experienced discrimination from the landlord due to racial bias. Whether or not the Equalities Act 2010 has been breached by the landlord is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court and the resident could contact Citizen’s Advice if she needs assistance regarding legal action. Nevertheless, we can investigate a landlords response reports of bias or discrimination and expect landlords to fully investigate any such reports through its complaint procedure. In this case records demonstrate that the landlord has done so through a separate complaint that has also previously been determined by this Service. As such it will not be further considered in this report.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports were appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances. In particular, the resident had said that she was dissatisfied with the stage one complaint response as she perceived it to be “threatening”. She stated that she found the language used inappropriate, distressing and offensive. The handling of the complaint will be assessed with this taken into consideration.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s initial complaint. An acknowledgement could have better set the resident’s expectations as to who will be dealing with the complaint and when they could expect to receive a full response, in accordance with its complaint policy.
The landlord compiled a stage one response on 22 July 2021, nine days after it received the resident’s complaint. This would have been within timescale noted within its complaint policy for which the resident could expect to receive a full response. However the letter was not sent until around four working days later, causing the response to fall outside of the timescales of its policy. The landlord has acknowledged this failure in its correspondence with this Service.
The stage one complaint response set out clearly its stance on each of the three elements that the resident had complained about, and assessed each one in a fair and pragmatic manner. Within her complaint, the resident made claims against the landlord for being “racist”, “useless” and had used terminology such as “idiots” and requesting that a particular member needed to be “sacked”. The landlord’s complaint policy has a specific clause to address what it believes to be inappropriately persistent, abusive or unreasonable behaviour.
No evidence was seen in the handling of the resident’s three substantive complaints which indicated that the landlord’s staff had acted unreasonably, incompetently or had discriminated against the resident. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord take steps to address the accusatory language that the resident had used, and offer appropriate support in managing it. However, in questioning whether the resident had any “underlying conditions” which could be contributing to her behaviour, it did not demonstrate that it was exploring the residents circumstances sensitively, causing the resident distress.
Whilst it was reasonable to have addressed the language, it was not appropriate for the landlord to have done so within its complaint response. The stage one response should have focussed on providing an outcome to its investigations into its alleged service failures. However, it incorporated within it a final warning to the resident for her behaviour, referencing a previous warning she had received.
This approach was unreasonable and is contrary to the process set out within its complaint policy which says that in circumstances where behaviours have not improved, then a ‘final warning – level 2’ would be sent. The landlord did not provide clarity on whether the final warning had been agreed by a head of service. It also failed to specify for what period of time the warning would remain in place for monitoring, before it would look to seek a legal remedy, as set out in its complaint policy. In effect it was not appropriate for the landlord to merge a final warning for behaviour into the complaint response, as it had not addressed these key elements.
The landlord explained that the resident had the option as to whether she attended the stage two panel hearing and made reassurances that whether she did or not, she would still receive a chronology pack prior to the hearing. However the landlord failed to provide the resident a date for a hearing or the chronology pack. This was unreasonable as it had failed to ensure that the resident had all the information available to her about her case, as it had assured her she would.
There were also delays in concluding the complaint at stage two. In accordance with its complaint policy, a written conclusion on the panel hearing would have been expected on the 17 September 2021, but it did not follow until 23 September 2021. Whilst the landlord was able to extend to this new deadline, in accordance with its policy, an extension letter should have been issued to the resident to explain why this would have been the case. It failed to do this and communicate effectively with the resident in line with its complaint policy.
In escalating her complaint to the landlord the resident made it clear that her reason for an escalation to stage two was because she did not feel that the landlord had followed its complaint process, and objected to the wording of the stage response. There was a failure by the landlord in identifying all of the ongoing reasons the resident was dissatisfied with in the handling of her complaint through its stage two response.
Having reviewed the resident’s concerns at the panel hearing, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure all elements of the complaint were addressed fully, and in doing so, should have given consideration to this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles – “Be Fair, Put Things Right” and “Learn from Outcomes”. However, it failed to do so. The stage two response focussed solely on the issue of the text message, the washing line and the ASB. It failed to explain its stance on the tone of the stage one response, and apologise or acknowledge the delays incurred during the complaint process. It also did not acknowledge that the resident had not been sent a chronology pack prior to the panel hearing. Ultimately the landlord did not address all of the reasons why the resident chose to escalate the matter to stage two, which hampered it in putting matters right and fully learning from the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The CHC recommends that landlords operate a two stage complaints process. The recommendation to have a two stage complaints process is also mentioned in the Ombudsman’s self-assessment, which member landlords are expected to complete annually to show they are complying with the CHC. A search done on the landlord’s website on 14 February 2023 noted that the landlord says that it ‘has a two stage process’.
However the landlord’s complaints policy makes reference to a three-stage complaint process, with one informal ‘de-escalation’ and two formal stages. In its complaint policy, the landlord refers to the CHC definition of a complaint being “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlords policy advises that the de-escalation stage does not form part of its formal complaint process, yet it still pertains to an expression of dissatisfaction by a resident. The information contained within the landlord’s self-assessment is inconsistent with its complaint policy and has caused confusion to the resident as to what the landlord’s process is, and what stage her complaints were at, as evidenced in the correspondence dated 30 August 2021. In liaising with this Service, the landlord has also made reference to other complaints made by the resident reaching “stage 2/3”.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not reasonably communicate the delays within its responses to the resident, and in addressing the tone of her correspondence, it failed to follow the correct process. The stage two response failed to address the reasons for the escalation, some of which highlighted that there were failings within its complaint process. The landlord failed to appropriately put things right and learn from outcomes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident about the landlord’s response to a text sent about a repair prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the landlord’s response to a removal of a washing line.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the landlord’s response to ASB.

Reasons

The landlord’s surveyor acted appropriately to address a repair that was required to the external area of the resident’s property. In doing so this auto-generated a text message with the intent of keeping the resident informed of the status of the repair. However, the wording of the text message insinuated that she had raised the repair and caused her distress. The landlord apologised for this and has taken steps to reword text messages to avoid confusion, as well as reviewing its communication methods.
The landlord had not had the opportunity to review the location and condition of the washing line prior to the resident’s complaint. Once it was made aware, it took steps to inspect it, identify the owner and ultimately take steps to remove it within a reasonable timeframe.
It was right that the landlord advise the resident that the ASB she was reporting should be dealt with under its ASB, not complaints policy. Nonetheless it advised of reasonable next steps to address the issue, and signposted the resident appropriately to the local authority in respect of the noise nuisance she was reporting.
There were failures of the landlord in its complaint handling in accordance with its policy. This included addressing the resident’s language within the same communication as the complaint response, omitting whether the decision to issue a final warning had been agreed by a head of service and to what timeframe the warning would apply. The landlord failed to refer to all of the concerns that the resident raised within her escalation request, including addressing why there had been delays in its correspondence. In doing so, it failed to put things right and learn from outcomes.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. write to the resident to offer an apology for the delays in handling her complaint
2. pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures
3. review its policy and process for managing unacceptable behaviour from residents and/or their representatives in pursuing a complaint, giving special consideration to keeping any warnings separate to any complaint responses
4. report back to the Ombudsman its compliance with the above orders and its intentions regarding the recommendation below.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to consider replacing its three-stage complaint process with a two-stage complaint process, as recommended within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.