Islington Council (202103622)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103622

Islington Council

21 April 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
    1. The caretaker attending his block on 2 March and 22 July 2021.
    2. Information published in its estate newsletter of December 2020.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property. The property is managed by a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO). 
  2. The property is a ground-floor flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties on an estate.
  3. The landlord has confirmed to this service that an injunction, with a power of arrest order, was issued to the resident by the County Court on 6 February 2020 as a result of him physically attacking the caretaker in question on the estate in January 2020. The injunction expired in February 2021. The landlord has also confirmed that the caretaker in question no longer has any duties at the block where the resident lives. However, if they were short of staff, he would be asked to attend the block under his manager’s instruction.

Summary of events

  1. On 2 March 2021, the landlord wrote to all the ground floor residents of the resident’s block regarding works on the flowerbeds and confirming the work would run between 4 to 12 March 2021. The letter noted that the landlord did not anticipate much noise but wanted to make residents aware of movement outside their windows.
  2. The resident contacted this service on 3 March 2021 to complain that although the landlord had said that works to the flowerbeds would be carried out from 3 March 2021, the caretaker in question had attended on 2 March 2021. The resident said that this had led to an altercation with the caretaker. The resident said that he had a video but couldn’t sent it as it was too large.
  3. This service wrote to the landlord on 5 March 2021, advising it of the resident’s new complaint and asking that the landlord issue the resident with a response.
  4. On 23 March 2021, the TMO issued the stage one response. The TMO said that the resident had previously been advised that, whilst the caretaker’s role had changed, he would be permitted, on occasion, to cover certain duties outside the resident’s block. The landlord acknowledged that the caretaker had arrived a day earlier than advised and therefore had done so without permission, for which it apologised.
  5. On 23 March 2021, the resident emailed this service to advise that he had received the landlord’s response, that they had partially upheld his complaint but completely ignored that the caretaker was not permitted to attend under any circumstances. The resident’s escalation request was forward to the landlord by this service on 25 March 2021.
  6. On 13 May 2021, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about the newsletter it had issued to all residents in December 2020. The resident said that the newsletter was sent to antagonise and ridicule him as it referenced the caretaker in question and also considerate residents who he said made angry and creepy looks through his window.
  7. On 14 May 2021, this service emailed the landlord to confirm that the resident’s complaint of 13 May 2021 related to landlord’s Stage one response of 23 March 2021 and the resident has still not received a response to his escalation request.
  8. On 18 May 2021, the landlord wrote to this service explaining that, due to its current backlog, it was unable to respond to the resident within the five working days requested by this service. A second holding letter would be issued to the resident that week and it would aim to issue a full response by 2 August 2021.
  9. On 23 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord referring to evidence of an incident the previous day when the caretaker was working close to his garden and communal door.
  10. The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 11 August 2021. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about the caretaker, stating that:
    1. The caretaker was not asked to attend the flowerbed outside resident’s property on 3 March 2021. He also knew he should not have been in such close proximity to the resident’s property without being accompanied by his manager. The caretaker had acknowledged that he had made a mistake, the board had accepted this explanation and decided that no further action was warranted.
    2. To avoid any further allegations about his conduct whilst at work, the caretaker had been told that he should pay extra care and attention when carrying out his duties in proximity of the resident’s property. That this would not be necessary under normal circumstances, and he should be able to carry out his duties as he would normally whilst on the estate. However, considering the historical differences and for the benefit of all concerned he must adhere to this.
    3. In light of this investigation and the Board’s involvement, the complaints team would be bringing this matter to the attention of the Board and the wider Housing Partnership Team who manage the TMO, to discuss the best way forward and, where applicable, to take any appropriate action.
  11. With regards to the resident’s concerns about the newsletter. The landlord said that the caretaker and his use of the leaf blower was known on the estate, he was associated mostly with that piece of equipment and so it was reasonable for the newsletter to mention it as it did. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had made numerous complaints about the caretaker’s use of the leaf-blower. However, this was the resident’s personal experience, and not necessarily a reflection of the overall community on the estate. The newsletter was not designed with specific residents in mind but for everyone living on the estate and it was not responsible for the resident’s interpretation of the content of that newsletter.
  12. In its final response the landlord also acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the delay in its final response to his complaint. The landlord explained that due to an increase in escalated complaint requests, it had been unable to respond within its timescale. The landlord offered the resident £75 in recognition of this delay.
  13. The landlord subsequently confirmed to this service that the matter had been bought to the attention of the board, the board had considered the situation and had not taken any further action.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states that the landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure:
    1. The first stage is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated. The landlord commits to acknowledging stage one complaint within three calendar days, and to issuing a written response within 21 calendar days.
    2. The second stage of the complaint’s procedure involves an investigation being undertaken by the Corporate Customer Service Team on behalf of the Chief Executive. The landlord commits to acknowledging receipt of a complaint escalation within three calendar days, and to issuing a full response within 28 calendar days.

The caretaker attending his block.

  1. In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident that the caretaker had arrived a day earlier to attend the flowerbeds. The landlord did not acknowledge that the caretaker should not have been outside the resident’s block on 2 March 2021 without being accompanied by his manager. The landlord took no further action at that time.
  2. The landlord later acknowledged to this service that the caretaker was aware that he was not to attend the block where the resident lived without his manager and he did not have permission to attend in the absence of his manager on the day concerned.     
  3. It is noted that there were no further reports by the resident regarding the caretaker until his report of 23 July 2021, four months later, that the caretaker had been outside his block on 22 July 2021.
  4. Following the resident’s escalation request, and further report on 23 July 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s allegations, speaking to the caretaker, who acknowledged that he had made a mistake, and in ensuring that the matter was considered by its board. Having considered the evidence the landlord’s board decided that no further action was warranted against the caretaker.
  5. In its final response of 11 August 2021, the landlord acknowledged that the caretaker should not have carried out the works outside the resident’s property for which it apologised to the resident.
  6. The landlord took reasonable steps to ensure that a similar incident did not occur in the future by reminding the caretaker that he should pay extra care and attention when carrying out his duties in proximity of the resident’s property.
  7. The landlord also subsequently confirmed to this service that the matter had been bought to the attention of the board, the board had considered the situation and had not taken any further action.
  8. Whilst it is not disputed that the caretaker carried out works outside the resident’s block for which he did not have permission on both 2 March and 22 July 2021, it should be noted that the restriction put in place were done so to protect the caretaker from the resident, following the assault in January 2020. Therefore, whilst the resident may have been frustrated at the caretaker’s attendance on 2 March and 22 July 2021 there is no evidence of any detriment to him in the caretaker being outside his block on those days.

Information published in the landlord’s estate newsletter

  1. Whilst the resident was clearly upset by the content of the estate newsletter, having reviewed the newsletter I am satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns were fair and reasonable. Whilst there was reference to the caretaker and the resident perceived those comments in the newsletter referred to him and his complaints, there is no evidence to support the resident’s allegations as the comments were very general and do not make any reference to the resident himself.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident lodged a stage one complaint with the landlord regarding the actions of its caretaker, via this service on 5 March 2021, to which the TMO issued the landlord’s stage one response on 23 March 2021. This complied with the landlord’s corporate complaints policy, which states that it is to issue a stage one complaint response within 21 calendar days.
  2. The resident’s escalation request was forward to the landlord by this service on 25 March 2021. The resident then raised another complaint on 13 May 2021 about the newsletter issued by the landlord to all residents in December 2020.
  3. On 14 May 2021, this service emailed the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint escalation. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints’ policy the landlord should have issued its stage two response within 28 days of the resident’s escalation request, by 11 June 2021. However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with its response until 11 August 2021, some 87 days after the resident’s escalation request was submitted.
  4. In its final response the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for this failure, explained the reasons for the delay and offered in £75 compensation, which, provided the resident was fair and proportionate redress for its complaint handling failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that the caretaker attended his block.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the information published in its estate newsletter.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. Whilst the caretaker did make an error in carrying out works outside the resident’s block on 2 March and 22 July 2021, I am satisfied that the landlord took appropriate steps to address this by investigating the resident’s reports, speaking to the caretaker and escalating the matter to its board which decided that no further action was required.
  2. Whilst the resident was clearly upset by the content of the newsletter, the landlord provided the resident with a fair and reasonable response explaining that the content was for all the residents on the estate. There is no evidence to support the resident’s allegations that the comments related directly to him, the comments being very general and in no way making any reference to the resident himself.
  3. Whilst the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one in accordance with its complaints policy, there was a long delay in its stage two response. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its final response in which apologised and offered the resident £75 compensation, the combination of which provide the resident reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. That within 28 days of the date of this determination, and if it has not done so already, the landlord is pay the resident the £75 compensation it offered in its final response with respect of its complaint handling failures.