Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Ealing (202334976)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334976

London Borough of Ealing

14 August 2025

 

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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of poor staff conduct.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and he has lived there since July 2021.
  2. In December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of a member of staff. He was unhappy he had been accused of having a party and leaving a communal area untidy. He also said that the member of staff had made an inappropriate comment about his heritage.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 February 2024. It said the member of staff had been told by a neighbour that it was the resident who had a party. However, they had questioned the resident about it, who said it was not him. They said that they had told him that was fine and left it at that. The landlord said they told it they had a pleasant conversation about his heritage and denied making an inappropriate comment about this.
  4. On 10 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint, saying the member of staff was lying. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 February 2024, in which it said it had no evidence to take any action against the member of staff.
  5. On 12 July 2024 the resident contacted us and asked us to investigate the complaint. He said he was unhappy the member of staff was still in place as this issue had made the relationship difficult. He recently let us know that the member of staff is no longer working in his building.

Assessment and findings

Staff conduct

  1. The resident expressed a dissatisfaction in relation to staff members conduct. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the members of staff did or did not conduct themselves in the manner the resident reported. Instead, it is the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in December 2023 following a recent incident. It is not clear from the landlord’s records, or its complaint responses, what date the incident occurred. The resident told the landlord that he had been accused of having a party in a communal area and leaving it untidy. He also said a member of staff had made an inappropriate comment about his heritage and he felt he was being treated differently due to this.
  3. The landlord investigated the resident’s report by speaking with the member of staff involved. They said that they had found the communal area untidy after a weekend and so gone door to door to find out who was responsible, which was a reasonable action to take. They said they were told by one of the neighbours that it was the resident who was responsible.
  4. The member of staff then spoke to the resident, which was a reasonable step for them to take, given what they had been told. They said that when the resident told them it was not him, they had said ‘ok’ and then left. They said they did not accuse him of anything and only asked the question based on information they were given. They said that they did not threaten the resident with a warning or say further action would be taken.
  5. The member of staff said that they had spoken with the resident about his heritage on a previous occasion, however this was a pleasant chat and nothing inappropriate was said. In its stage 1 response of 1 February 2024, the landlord said that there were no other witnesses to the conversations the resident was unhappy with. So, it said it had no evidence to corroborate either version of events and would not take any action against the member of staff.
  6. The landlord did, however, say that it had initiated training for its staff around professional behaviour and boundaries. This was a proactive step for it to take.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 10 February 2024. He said that the member of staff was lying and he was unhappy they would be continuing to work in the building.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 February 2024. It reiterated that it had no evidence to support either version of events and so could not take any action. It said, however, that it had met with the member of staff and reiterated its expectations.
  9. The landlord confirmed that the training it discussed at stage 1 had now been rolled out. It also said it was currently reviewing its processes and there would be changes in how it monitors and manages staff in the future. While the landlord was unable to confirm any wrongdoing by its staff member, it was positive that it still took action in terms of its processes and training.
  10. The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of poor staff conduct. As there were no witnesses to the conversations, there was no evidence for the landlord to rely on to take action against its staff member.
  11. While we understand that the resident feels that the landlord should have done more, it conducted a reasonable investigation, given the lack of available evidence. It then clearly explained to the resident why no action would be taken. Despite not finding evidence of poor staff conduct, it took proactive steps to improve its process and training going forward.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaints process in place at the time of the complaint said that it would acknowledge a complaint within 4 working days. It said a stage 1 response would be sent within 20 working days. At stage 2, it said it would send its response within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord has told us the resident raised his complaint in December 2023, however it no longer has a copy of the complaint, or its acknowledgement. It has told us it told the resident it would respond in January 2024, however it is not clear whether it gave a more specific date.
  4. The landlord was unable to respond in January 2024 as the member of staff who was the subject of the complaint had to take unexpected leave. We appreciate it was necessary to interview the member of staff as part of its investigation. However, we have seen no evidence it updated the resident to explain the delay, which was not appropriate.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 February 2024. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 10 February 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 February 2024, which was in line with its policy timescale.
  6. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. While it had a valid reason for delaying its stage 1 response to the resident, it should have provided him with an update to explain the delay.
  7. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to keep him updated. This award has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of poor staff conduct
    2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident compensation of £50 for its complaint handling
    2. apologise in writing for its complaint handling failures
    3. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders