Hornsey Housing Trust Limited (202202399)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202399

Hornsey Housing Trust Limited

9 January 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

The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s handling of a leak repair to the property below the resident’s.

b.     The landlord’s conduct in respect of historic reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

c.      The landlord’s conduct in respect of historic repairs and the resident’s request to be moved to the property below.

d.     The resident’s concerns relating to staff conduct, including the handling of her mother’s tenancy.

Jurisdiction

1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Handling of leak repair

2. In 2022, the landlord said it needed to gain access to the resident’s property to repair a leak into the flat below, and that it was a health and safety issue. The resident was unhappy about this and the Ombudsman understands that the landlord has since issued proceedings against her to gain access to her property in order to repair the leak.
3. Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where a resident has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. Given that the access issues are being considered via the courts, the resident should now properly raise any concerns on this matter through that process. As a result, this complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is not considered further in this report.

Historic reports of ASB

4. In recent correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s conduct towards her in its handling of historic reports of ASB. However, these matters have previously been investigated and determined by this Service in April 2023 (under case ref. 202013324).
5. Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Ombudsman has already decided upon. As a result, this matter falls outside this Service’s jurisdiction and is not considered further in this report.

Historic repairs and request to move to the property below

6. In recent correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has also raised concerns about the landlord’s conduct when addressing historic repairs and her request to move to the property below. The resident referred to the landlord’s actions in December 2023 in letting the property below hers. However, there is no evidence of the resident raising these concerns with the landlord as part of the formal complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in August 2022, which is under investigation here.
7. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to resolve issues internally before this Service intervenes. As a result, these matters fall outside our jurisdiction, and are not considered further in this report.
8. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these matters she may wish to raise a new complaint in that regard. However, given the historic nature of some of the issues raised, there may be limitations on what complaints will be logged at this time. The landlord should ensure that it responds to any complaints received in line with its complaints policy.

Background and summary of events

Background

9. The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced in 2000. She has advised that she is vulnerable and has mental health needs. However, the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for her. The property is a 2 bedroom split level house which the resident shares with her daughter. During the complaint timeframe the resident’s elderly mother also lived with them.
10. The landlord has 13 members of staff. It provides its repair service through a partner landlord (Newlon Housing Trust) and its own contractors. The landlord operates a 3 stage complaint process with process times of 10, 15, and 20 days for stages 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Stage 3 complaints are made to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

Summary of Events

11. On 14 March 2022 the resident reported loss of heating and hot water to the landlord. The landlord told the resident’s Councilor, who had asked if it could use its discretion to prioritise the repair, that: it would arrange for temporary heating for the day; a repair appointment was booked in for following day; and if there was a cancellation it would ask for the resident’s repair to be prioritised. The repair was duly completed on the same day. The resident said the heating and hot water was restored and she was shown how to fix it if it happened again.
12. From 4 to 17 March 2022, the landlord and resident discussed access to her property for a leak repair affecting the property below. On 25 March 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about its member of staff’s conduct, stating that:

a.     The landlord had continually exercised ‘racist misogynistic harassing behaviour’ by not doing its job.

b.     The landlord lied to the Councilor about not being able to ask the contractor to attend to the broken boiler on the same day.

c.      The member of staff had visited the property instead of the asset manager, and was therefore interfering in other staff’s job.

d.     The landlord was harassing her because of her race and prioritised the neighbour’s repair because of their race.  

13. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 April 2022 it said:

a.     It considered the resident’s complaint about the member of staff serious and concerning. It set out the individual instances which the resident had raised and explained the actions of its member of staff.

b.     The member of staff got involved in the heating and hot water service request because he wanted to complete this positively and quickly. He had also sent an email to the Councilor about the repair. 

c.      The member of staff was also dealing with getting access to the resident’s property to address a leak. It invited the resident to contact it to arrange access and advised that, otherwise, it would take steps to gain access such as change locks or get an injunction.

14. On 14 April 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord stating that:

a.     The member of staff who she was complaining about had influenced other staff (such as those responding to her complaint) to respond in a ‘bullish way’ and there had been collusion and ‘racist and harassing’ conduct. This never happened prior to her sending her complaint in about the staff.

b.     The landlord was emotionally driven and it was unprofessional for it to respond to her in this way, and tenants could not complain if they were faced with violent aggression.

c.      The resident stood by the stage 1 complaint that the landlord was racist and harassing towards the resident and her mother for 4 years. The landlord took advantage of the resident’s vulnerable mother’s situation by changing the locks and trespassing, making her homeless, and leaving her belongings in a former flat for over 6 months before putting them into storage and destroying them. The resident explained her concerns about the landlord’s conduct towards her mother.

d.     The resident said that the landlord lied, and it was ‘aggressive, threatening, and intimidating’.

e.     She asked for the complaint to be escalated as it was inaccurate and also made further allegations against the member of staff, who she considered had sent her threats of trespassing and changing locks to silence her. She felt extremely shaken and scared.

15. The resident subsequently emailed the landlord again, asking for the complaint to go straight to the landlord’s board because of her particular concerns about the member of staff’s conduct towards her.
16. The landlord asked the resident to confirm the reason she was not satisfied with the stage 1 investigation and she replied in May 2022 that it already had this information. She referred to her earlier communication and said that she wanted the complaint escalated to stages 2 and 3. The landlord initially said the stage 2 response would be given within its policy timescale (which it calculated as 11 May 2022 from when the resident confirmed her concerns) but it later advised that it needed more time to consider the complaint and scheduled the response for 18 May 2022.
17. On 18 May 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, as follows:

a.     It described its complaint process to reassure the resident on her hesitancy in making a formal complaint and the reason why it was not the CEO who was responding at stage 2. It explained that stages 1 and 2 were dealt with by staff, not the CEO.

b.     It had not found any evidence of staff colluding against the resident.

c.      The resident’s complaint raised ‘extremely serious issues’ of discriminatory behaviour by its senior member of staff in the form of racism, misogyny and harassment. It concluded that the reports related to interactions about repairs which the resident took as evidence of racism and misogyny.

d.     It provided a table (over 4 pages) where it set out the resident’s individual allegations and its corresponding responses. This has been seen by all parties, but some examples are as follows:

Resident allegation	Landlord response
The member of staff did not do their job	All staff have performance appraisals and are measured accordingly.
The member of staff lied to the Councilor	The resident did not provide any evidence to support the allegation.
The member of staff interfered with the asset manager	Its staff communicate with residents on property matters. It is a small housing provider so staff do collaborate to deliver services.
The landlord harassed the resident	The correspondence was only made in the normal course of business to arrange or confirm repair details and there was no evidence of harassment, or misogyny or racism
The resident reaffirmed her belief that that landlord was racist and abusive towards her mother and the resident for 4 years	The landlord acknowledged that the resident held this belief but it did not find evidence of this and refuted the allegation.
The resident’s mother was described as homeless ‘and with belongings in the flat’ and the landlord did not take the mother to court for the locks.	The resident’s mother signed over the tenancy and this had been addressed previously. There was no evidence of the allegations raised at stage 1.

e.     It concluded the complaint by explaining its response on the resident’s three allegations of racism, misogyny, and harassment. In summary, it said that there was no evidence to support the allegations and it considered that the interactions were to facilitate the repairs and the member of staff doing their job. It reiterated the explanation of staff collaboration, citing the small size of its organisation, and it disputed the resident’s account by saying that this was a normal and necessary part of running the organisation.

f.        It took complaints about protected characteristics seriously and in light of the breakdown in communication, it proposed mediation with the resident to improve the landlord and tenant relationship.

g.     It would aim to review its contact with the resident with a view to being clear and giving attention to tone, and it asked the resident to do the same in her communication to it.

h.     It provided the escalation details and grounds which invited the resident’s comments on the outstanding dissatisfaction and actions she sought, before it would escalate to stage 3.

18. On 17 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said:

a.     She stood by her complaint about the landlord’s racist behaviour towards her and her mother for almost 4 years. She was not in agreement with its response, which was full of falsehoods and should be escalated to the board members so they could hear her voice.

b.     The resident referred to matters which are not within the scope of this investigation, saying that the member of staff just wanted to harass her with other staff as part of a gang.

c.      The landlord had been unprofessional and it failed to state what the mediation would be about.

19. On 21 June 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage 2 response, but said that her communication did not address the reason why she wanted the matter escalated. It repeated the escalation options and said it would not be able to investigate new points at stage 3. It said it understood that the issues were important and wanted to work with the resident.
20. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 23 June 2022, she said the issues raised in the stage 1 complaint about the member of staff remained the same.
21. The landlord’s CEO issued the stage 3 response on 8 August 2022, as follows:

a.     It remained unclear on why the resident remained dissatisfied.

b.     It proposed a meeting between itself, the resident, and an independent mediator. The resident had asked what the meeting would be about and the landlord said it was to explore how to work together to improve their relationship, but the resident’s response was ‘not positive’ and she wanted to escalate the complaint.

c.      It had therefore reviewed the complaint without further input from the resident.

d.     The resident did not provide evidence to suggest or prove the allegations of misogyny, racism or harassment during the time it was arranging access to her property.

e.     As a small organisation, it was customary for staff to collaborate and address resident needs, to ensure it prioritised repairs. The complaint was not upheld.

22. In December 2023 – January 2024 the resident clarified to the Ombudsman that her complaint was not about the leak, but the landlord’s staff conduct towards her. She explained that she experienced distress and detriment to her mental health because of everything that had happened. She referred to matters pertaining to the court action, and expressed her view that the landlord had not shown a willingness to engage with her and instead it took harsh measures such as serving formal letters with legal notices. The resident also explained that the landlord should be aware of her vulnerabilities as her GP and Councillors have highlighted this to it (such as in 2021) and she has been a victim of violence so she would really prefer to speak to a woman. She also explained that she would like the opportunity to be on a tenant panel as she has been a tenant for over 30 years and wants to be represented. The resident also sought compensation for the loss of her mother’s belongings, such as family and wedding photographs, and personal items.

Assessment and findings

23. In line with the Ombudsman’s role as set out in the Scheme, this Service has not carried out its own investigation into allegations against the member of staff. It is also not for the Ombudsman to form a view on the individual member of staff’s conduct or intentions towards the resident. Instead, this Service has objectively considered the evidence of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct, and assessed whether this was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
24. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was distressed by the reported conduct of the member of staff and it is understood that this may have been exacerbated by her mental health conditions and vulnerabilities, which may affect how she perceives communication from the landlord. With that in mind, the landlord should take steps to ensure that the resident’s vulnerabilities are clearly recorded so that this can be taken into account in future communications.
25. The landlord has explained in its evidence submission to the Ombudsman that its investigation into the resident’s allegations were in one with the internal complaint investigation. The available evidence shows that, when the resident first raised her concerns about the member of staff’s conduct at stage 1, the landlord provided an explanation of the actions which she considered to be offensive. Thus, the resident reported that the landlord’s member of staff’s involvement was interfering, ganging up, colluding, and it was racist and misogynistic.
26. However, the landlord disputed these allegations and explained the reason for the member of staff’s involvement on each of the occasions, which were related to repairs. The evidence seen shows that the landlord’s communication, including to the Councillor, was solely about the repairs. Whilst the resident was dissatisfied with the interactions, the landlord took appropriate steps by addressing them directly and offering explanations for them.
27. Upon the resident’s report of continued dissatisfaction, the landlord took reasonable steps to engage with her, such as by asking her to confirm the issues she felt it had not addressed and the outcome sought. Her comments were often broad and referred to the landlord’s written responses as evidence of the conduct she was complaining about. The landlord explained its complaint process, which aligned with the policy set out above, and suggested mediation between itself and the resident, with an independent mediator.
28. This was reasonable as the landlord proactively tried to manage what it described as a breakdown in communication. The landlord demonstrated an awareness of the limitations it was under due to the sensitive and serious allegations which the resident had reported and her responses to its explanations previously. By offering to bring in an independent third party and meet with the resident the landlord showed a resolution focused approach. The resident told the Ombudsman that she did not know who it chose, or what the meeting was for, and she has since confirmed that there was a virtual meeting with the landlord, although the details of this are unclear.
29. The landlord was resolution focused by reassuring the resident as to her right to complain, when she felt that she was being punished for raising complaints historically. It is reasonable for the landlord to support its residents’ rights to raise concerns or grievances, with a view to improving the landlord and tenant relationship.
30. The evidence shows that the landlord undertook a comprehensive analysis of the resident’s individual allegations and responded to each of these with an explanation and included how it considered the evidence which it was given by the resident. This was an appropriate way to address this sensitive dispute with clarity.

32.  When the resident escalated her complaint after the stage 1 complaint response she referred to the landlord’s conduct in handling her mother’s belongings. The landlord said that the matter had been dealt with already, and cited no evidence of the allegations of abuse towards her mother. The resident was given the opportunity to confirm why she wanted the matter escalated, and she explained that the issues remained the same.

33. The landlord did not explain to the resident what its investigation had been into her complaint about her mother’s belongings other than to say that it had previously been dealt with, and explain that there was no evidence of the allegations of abuse. There has been misunderstanding or misconstrued communication, as the resident told the Ombudsman that she felt the landlord was mocking her when it asked her to clarify her concerns.
34. The Ombudsman has been unable to investigate this point further, due to a lack of evidence and limited specific information being provided by the resident during the internal complaint process. In any event, the matter appears to have taken place 4 years ago and refers to another tenant of the landlord (the resident’s mother), who has not brought a complaint to the Ombudsman herself. The circumstances have clearly been difficult, with missed opportunity by the resident to clarify her complaint, and potentially unaddressed communication and vulnerability needs by the landlord which have made communication between the landlord and resident challenging.
35. There was no maladministration given all the circumstances of the case, but there has been a potential communication and vulnerability issue that this situation has highlighted. Therefore, it would be resolution focused for the landlord to record the resident’s vulnerability and discuss any communication needs with her, so that any complaints can be clearly and accurately addressed, and the ongoing relationship between the parties are improved. A recommendation has been made on this.

36. The landlord said that it did not receive evidence of some of the resident’s allegations apart from her comments and descriptions of what the landlord’s actions showed. In response, the landlord offered its own explanation of the actions. It explained the reason for the member of staff’s involvement in the past, citing the size of the organisation and the collaboration between staff in delivering services. It also offered a different view of the resident’s perspective, which was that rather than interference this was necessary for running the organisation.
37. It is clear that the resident and landlord disagree on this point, and while this is unfortunate, it is not evidence of a failing by the landlord. However, it is clear that the resident raised serious concerns following what the landlord considered to be normal business interactions, therefore, a recommendation is made about how the landlord manages its communications in light of any vulnerabilities.
38. Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord responded to the resident’s allegations of poor staff conduct with reasonable steps to engage and clarify her experience, and the table set out in its stage 2 response demonstrates its attempts to be clear and transparent. It cited lack of evidence to support the allegations and offered a meeting to help restore the relationship moving forward, which was resolution focused. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the member of staff is acknowledged, there has been no maladministration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the resident’s concerns relating to staff conduct, including the landlord’s handling of her mother’s tenancy.
40. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a leak repair to the property below the resident’s is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
41. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s conduct in respect of historic reports of ASB is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
42. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s conduct in respect of historic repairs and the resident’s request to be moved to the property below is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

43. The landlord took steps to engage with the resident’s individual reports and allegations of misconduct and offered an explanation on its conclusions. It explained that it did not have any evidence, aside from the resident’s description of the events which it considered to be genuine business operation. It presented its findings clearly and offered the resident a meeting to improve its ongoing relationship, which was resolution focused. Though the resident remains of the view that the landlord’s actions amounted to various kinds of misconduct, this is not in and of itself evidence of a failure.

Recommendations

44. Within four weeks of the date of this report, it is recommended that the landlord:

a.        discusses the resident’s vulnerability with her and consider how it can adapt its communication with her to assist the landlord and tenant relationship moving forward.

b.        update its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerability

c.        remind its staff of its equality and diversity policy and of its vulnerable customer policy.