Leicester City Council (202108372)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108372

Leicester City Council

23 June 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

  1. This is about the resident’s complaint of unprofessional behaviour from the landlord’s housing officer.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat. She holds a secure tenancy which began on 27 February 2006. The resident is also a representative of her brother, and they are both tenants of the landlord. During a Covid-19 lockdown in February 2021 the resident’s brother went to stay at her property.
  2. On 5 July 2021, the resident made several calls to the landlord’s human resources (HR) department about her “disabled brother being evicted”. The housing officer who was the resident’s single point of contact was asked to call the resident back and did so at 5pm. The resident denied making the call about her brother being evicted and the housing officer reassured her that there was no eviction.
  3. After this, the housing officer enquired as to the welfare of her brother and whether he had moved back to his property. There had been a report he had not been seen for 5 months and was normally seen collecting the paper at a local shop. The resident wanted to know who had reported this concern, a question that the housing officer declined to reply to, due to data protection.
  4. On 8 July 2021, after contact from the resident this service wrote to the landlord to ask it to respond to the resident using its complaints process. The complaint was about:
    1. The housing officer contacting her outside of normal working hours and calling her by her first name.
  1. The housing officer asking personal questions about her brother.
  2. She wanted to raise a formal complaint about the housing officer but had been directed back to the housing officer.
  1. On 22 July 2021, the landlord wrote a stage 1 reply to the resident’s complaint. It explained that it had spoken with the housing officer and a manager to understand the complaint before it sent its response:
    1. On 5 July 2021, the resident had contacted the landlord’s HR department about her concern about her brother getting evicted. A call back was raised for the housing officer who made a phone call to the resident at 5pm. The landlord explained that this time was the earliest opportunity the housing officer could return the call and that it did not consider this time outside of working hours.
    2. During the call the housing officer enquired about the welfare of the resident’s brother. The landlord explained it was within the housing officer’s role to ask after his welfare, especially considering he was also the subject of the residents original call back request.
    3. On 8 July 2021, the resident had contacted the city mayor’s office about the same issues and had her enquiry returned to the housing officer because he was the resident’s single point of contact. The housing officer attempted to call the resident at 5.30pm, having been working on other matters until this time. The landlord explained the housing officer had tried to call at the earliest opportunity and on the same day. It apologised for the call at this time and said that it had asked the housing officer to be mindful of call times in the future.
    4. The landlord said that a new housing officer would not be assigned to the resident as the housing officer had “gone above and beyond” to assist and had made sure he returned her call requests on the same day.
    5. The landlord asked the resident to use her single point of contact in the future as they were best placed to respond to her housing needs.
  2. On 27July 2021, the landlord confirmed the receipt of a stage 2 request. The resident had asked for an escalation because:
    1. She was not satisfied there had been no replacement housing officer.
    2. She was unhappy that the current housing officer had personal information about her brother and would not disclose where the information had come from. She felt that someone was watching her brother and she said she would not tolerate this.
    3. She disagreed that she should inform the landlord when she intended to take holidays throughout the year.
    4. She felt bullied by the landlord’s housing team.
  3. On 8 August 2021, the resident has said she was visited by the Police at the request of the housing officer, who had asked them to make a welfare visit.
  4. On 24 August 2021, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint:
    1. It would not allocate another housing officer based on an unsubstantiated complaint. It had no concerns about the housing officer’s conduct.
    2. It apologised for any concern caused by the housing officer discussing the resident’s brother. The call was regarding a welfare concern, and it was the officer’s remit to make sure the landlord’s tenants were safe and managing in their tenancies. It explained that nobody was watching her brother and other residents would make reports to the landlord if they had not seen their neighbour for a prolonged period.
    3. It confirmed that under the Data Protection Act it would not share who gave it the information about her brother.
    4. It referenced the tenancy agreement section 3.3.3 which says, “if you are going to be away from your home and not return for 30 days or more, you must inform us you will be away from home.” It explained that this was to prevent the landlord investigating the abandonment of the property and that the housing officer was only referring to the conditions of the tenancy.
    5. It apologised that the resident felt unhappy with how the housing team had treated her in general over the years, but it had not found any evidence of unfair treatment under these circumstances.

After the final response letter

  1. The resident advised this service that the landlord had not answered her complaint about the housing officer’s request for the police to conduct a welfare visit to her. After the landlord issued its final response letter on 24 August 2021 the resident raised that she had been visited by the police at the request of the housing officer on 8 August 2021. This has not been considered by the landlord through its complaints process so will not be considered as part of this investigation. To resolve the matter a recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide the resident with a response to this query.

Assessment and findings

  1. The housing officer made two calls to the resident at times that caused the resident concern as they were, in her view, outside of normal working hours. The calls were made at 5pm and 5.30pm and both were in response to enquiries made on the same day by the resident. The housing officer, as the resident’s single point of contact had been making effort to respond to the resident’s enquiries on the same day and by doing so demonstrated a good level of customer care. The landlord did not know that the resident considered calls after 5pm to be inappropriate and, when notified of this through the complaints process the landlord adjusted its approach by letting the housing officer know.
  2. Part of the housing officer role is to make sure its residents are living in their homes and have access to support if they need it. This can be done by conducting investigations based on locally received information. The landlord knew that the residents brother had been staying with her therefore it was reasonable for the housing officer to speak to her about his welfare when the opportunity arose during the telephone call on 5 July 2021.
  3. The information that her brother had not been seen collecting his paper for 5 months was relevant to the housing officer’s enquiries as the tenancy agreement says that the landlord must be kept informed if the property will be unoccupied for 30 days or more. In asking about the resident’s brother’s current circumstances, the housing officer fulfilled their responsibility to ensure the landlord’s properties are occupied in line with the tenancy agreement.
  4. The resident expressed a concern that her brother was being watched and wanted to know who had told the landlord about him not being seen collecting his paper, so she could take her own actions. The exact source of the information would be protected under the General Data Protection Law. Within this law any data that can identify the subject (such as a name) is protected and the landlord’s explanation of this was appropriate.
  5. The landlord has appropriately conducted enquiries on receipt of the resident’s complaints by speaking to the housing officer and a housing manager. After taking these steps it has been reasonable in making its position not to assign a new housing officer clear, by explaining the housing officer’s actions, adapting its style based on feedback on the resident’s contact preferences and confirming the housing officer’s actions were not unreasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the resident’s reports of unprofessional behaviour by the housing officer.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted reasonably when it telephoned the resident at 5pm and when it made enquiries about her brother. As this time is considered to be within normal working hours  and it has a responsibility to consider the welfare of its residents. The landlord has given sufficient and appropriate explanations to the resident’s complaints in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to clarify its position to the resident on its approach to safeguarding which may result in housing officers requesting welfare visits from the police.