Harlow District Council (202344711)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house that the resident has occupied since 1994. The complaint relates to behaviour of staff and damage to the resident’s personal items, including carpets, during repair works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns regarding staff conduct.
   2. Report of damage to personal items.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage to personal items.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns about staff conduct sufficiently. Its investigation was not balanced and lacked impartiality.
5. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to address the contractor‑caused damage by apologising, arranging the necessary repairs, and offering appropriate financial redress.
6. The landlord broadly met its complaint handling timescales, despite not evidencing acknowledgement of the stage 1 complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. In relation to staff conduct, our role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen. Rather, it is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord in response to concerns raised were reasonable, put things right where necessary, and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
8. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she did not raise the issue regarding staff behaviour. This was raised during her escalation request.
9. In her stage 2 complaint dated 8 February 2024, the resident reported that during a visit from a member of staff, she found their behaviour to be rude and unprofessional. Although it is not possible to determine precisely what occurred during the visit, this assessment considers whether the landlord responded to her concerns appropriately.
10. When concerns are raised about staff conduct, the landlord is expected to demonstrate good practice by carrying out a thorough investigation. This should include speaking with the staff involved, responding in a timely manner, and clearly communicating the findings and outcome to the resident.
11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a misunderstanding between the resident and a member of staff regarding the installation of a bath. However, there is no evidence that the landlord interviewed the staff member involved or documented any fact‑finding enquiries, which was not appropriate. In addition, the wording used in its response, such as “we are sorry you feel” and “you became very upset”, was not appropriate. This is because it focused on the resident’s emotional response rather than acknowledging and addressing the concerns she had raised.
12. The internal communication reviewed as part of this investigation appeared defensive and influenced by personal views towards the staff member involved. As a result, the landlord’s investigation lacked balance and did not demonstrate the impartial approach expected. While it was reasonable for the landlord to refer to its expectations of staff professionalism in its response, this should not have been framed in a way that appeared to contradict or undermine the resident’s account.
13. The landlord identified some learning from this complaint, stating that in future it would ensure any verbal agreements were confirmed in writing through a letter of agreement before any work was undertaken, which was a positive step.
14. Overall, the landlord did not respond to the concerns about staff conduct in an appropriate or sufficiently robust manner. While it acknowledged a misunderstanding regarding the bath installation, it did not demonstrate that it had carried out a fair and thorough investigation into the behaviour concerns raised at stage 2. The language used in its response minimised the resident’s experience, and internal correspondence showed a defensive rather than impartial approach.
15. Although the landlord identified learning around documenting verbal agreements, it did not evidence meaningful reflection on how it would improve its handling of staff conduct concerns in future. Taken together, the landlord’s actions fell short of expected standards. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

16. The resident told us she was frustrated at being given conflicting information about the repairs. While we do not dispute her account, our investigation must rely on the documentary evidence provided to us.
17. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint dated 18 January 2024, she reported that her belongings had been damaged as a result of work carried out by the landlord’s contractors. This included damage to carpets, a curtain track, the walls, and a twisted radiator. She also provided the replacement costs for the carpets and stated that the contractor had advised her the damage would be repaired at no cost to her.
18. The landlord liaised internally and with its contractor to establish how the issues would be resolved. This was an appropriate step, as effective coordination between departments and contractors is necessary to understand the cause of the damage, agree on responsibility, and plan suitable remedial action. By liaising with the contractor, the landlord demonstrated that it was taking reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and identify how the matter could be put right.
19. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s workmanship and the resulting damage to her belongings. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. Additionally, it confirmed the action it had taken to remedy each issue:
    1. Carpet: The contractor offered up to £400 for replacement. As the resident had provided a quote for £305.81, the landlord arranged to pay this amount directly to the supplier.
    2. Curtain track: The contractor offered £50 as a goodwill gesture, payable upon receipt of the resident’s bank details.
    3. Damage to walls and ceilings: The landlord arranged for both bedrooms to be fully repainted and confirmed that contractors were already on site.
    4. Radiators: The contractor realigned the radiators while decorating, also as a goodwill gesture.
20. Following its investigation, the landlord stated that the complaint was partially upheld due to the issues identified. On the whole, the landlord’s response was positive. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns, offered an apology, and provided a clear breakdown of the steps taken to put things right.
21. In March 2026, the resident told us that she had not received the £50 compensation offered to her for the damage to the curtain track. She acknowledged that she had not followed this up. Nevertheless, we have addressed this matter in our recommendation.
22. In conclusion, the landlord took several reasonable and proportionate steps to address the damage caused by its contractor. This included apologising, arranging repairs, and offering financial redress. Its actions demonstrated a willingness to put matters right and engage constructively with both the resident and the contractor. The evidence shows that all works were completed in March 2024.

23. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
24. The resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 18 January 2024. There is no evidence to show that the landlord issued an acknowledgement. However, it provided its stage 1 response 14 working days after receiving the complaint, which was a reasonable timeframe.
25. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint within the timescales set out in its policy.
26. Overall, although the landlord did not evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it nonetheless provided its response within a reasonable timeframe. The stage 2 complaint was both acknowledged and responded to within the policy requirements. Taken together, the landlord broadly met the timescales set out in its complaints policy and the Code.

Learning

27. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord should ensure that all interactions, verbal agreements, complaints, and follow‑up actions are consistently documented and stored in an accessible and auditable format. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this. The landlord may also wish to utilise the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning.

Communication

29. Improving communication standards and adopting a more robust and objective approach to investigating staff conduct concerns will help the landlord prevent similar issues in future and support better outcomes for residents. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights can assist with this.