Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202429151)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroomed flat. The household is comprised of 1 adult and 3 children. The resident said that the landlord did not treat her appropriately during a home visit. She later disagreed with its rejection of a management let, how it dealt with her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and its handling of staff conduct concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of staff conduct concerns.
   2. A request for a management let.
   3. Reports of ASB.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of staff conduct concerns.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the request for a management let.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
6. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

Summary of reasons

7. We found:
   1. The landlord failed to meaningfully address staff conduct concerns. It did not show that it investigated the comments the resident said its team member had made.
   2. It did not evidence that it considered the resident’s circumstances when considering overcrowding and her management let request.
   3. It did not contact the resident when it said it would or provide details for the ASB case review.
   4. The landlord responded to the complaint with minor delays, for which it offered reasonable redress.

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.

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.

8. In both complaint responses, the landlord apologised for how the resident was made to feel by its team members at the home visits. In its stage 1 response following the initial visit, the landlord said that it provided feedback to the team member’s manager for discussion. After this discussion, the landlord explained the reasons why it had asked such personal questions and clarified that the team member had no intention of causing upset. This demonstrated that it acknowledged the resident’s feelings and took the original conduct complaint seriously.
9. However the resident made clear in her escalation that specific comments were made towards her which she had found upsetting. Such as, “if the racism was true, why would (neighbours) talk to (resident’s family member)”. The landlord provided evidence that its team member did make this comment. It did not evidence that it acknowledged or investigated this, or other alleged comments, further. That was not reasonable. The landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to taking reports seriously or recognising the impact issues may have on residents, in line with its redress policy. The resident said this made her feel disregarded and that unacceptable behaviour is tolerated. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to investigate the allegations made by the resident.  It must write to the resident with the outcome of this investigation.
10. Considering the above, we have made a finding of maladministration.
11. Financial compensation is appropriate here to reflect the distress and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of investigation of her specific allegations. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident and which the landlord has failed to acknowledge or attempted to put right.

12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed refusal of the request for a management let as all other options had not been exhausted. This was consistent with the housing allocations policy which says that management lets should be considered on an exceptions basis.
13. Regarding overcrowding, the landlord said the resident must accept that she chose to overcrowd herself, and before she allowed her family member to move in the property was not overcrowded. This was consistent with the tenancy agreement which requires residents to ensure their homes do not become overcrowded.
14. In her escalation the resident made the landlord aware that her family member, a child, had been placed with her by social services as a necessity and was limited in the areas she could move to. We cannot say with certainty that this information would change the landlord’s decision on the management let request. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord reviewed its position considering the new information. That was a failing. We have made an order for the landlord to do so now and write to the resident with the outcome.
15. Considering this, we have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £75 to reflect the frustration and inconvenience caused by its failure to consider the new information she provided. This is consistent with our remedies guidance for failings which may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

16. In August 2024 the landlord responded promptly to reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. Within 9 days, it encouraged the resident to report incidents, worked with other agencies and engaged with individuals linked to the ASB. It completed a vulnerability matrix form, consistent with its vulnerable tenant policy. In that form the landlord said it would phone the resident fortnightly. We have not seen evidence that it did. This was not reasonable. The landlord should make sure it follows through with any commitments it makes to the resident.
17. After receiving the complaint escalation, the landlord completed another vulnerability matrix. The landlord asked the resident to send ASB incidents on an incident log. The next day the landlord engaged with 2 agencies about the resident’s ASB reports. These actions were in line with its policies.
18. When the resident remained unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with the ASB, the landlord appropriately advised that it had investigated as necessary and that the resident had not provided any log sheets. However its ASB policy says that if a resident is not satisfied with the service received, information will be given about the ASB case review. We have not seen evidence that the landlord did this. This was a failing.
19. Considering the above we have made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £75. This is consistent with our remedies guidance for minor failings which may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days of it being made. It informed the resident that it needed an additional 7 working days to deal with the complaint. These actions were appropriate and in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code.) The landlord issued its stage 1 response one day later than agreed which exceeded the timescales outlined in the Code.
21. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation 2 days late. It later told the resident that it needed more time to respond. It issued its final response 38 working days after the complaint escalation and within the extension times permitted by the Code.
22. There are minor failings identified which were unlikely to have significantly impacted the resident or the management of the complaint. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £50 in compensation. This is in line with its redress policy for failings of low impact or mild inconvenience. Overall, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.