Luton Borough Council (202422810)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422810

Luton Borough Council

8 September 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 concerns about:
   1. its investigation into her complaint about staff conduct.
   2. its Chief Executive response to her emails.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her 3 bedroom house since September 2000.
3. On 5 February 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response in relation to a complaint the resident made about a staff member’s (Officer A’s) comment towards her. It said that it had spoken to Officer A and he could not “recall” making the comment and he said that it was “unlikely” that he did.
4. On 5 August 2024 the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s response. She said that the complaints officer did not speak to her directly about her concerns and “by extension had called [her] a liar”.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 August 2024. It said:
   1. the complaints officer did not call the resident because there was no requirement for him to do so at the time.
   2. the complaint officer felt that he had sufficient understanding of the resident’s complaint without the need to seek further clarification.
   3. Officer A and the resident presented conflicting accounts of events. It did not have sufficient evidence to determine that Officer A made the comments. It said if the resident had evidence that he did, it would reconsider the complaint.
   4. it was not feasible for the Chief Executive to directly respond to complaints or correspondence from residents. It explained complaints sent to him directly were forwarded to the relevant service as per its complaints procedure.
6. On the same day the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
   1. the complaint officer did not contact her to discuss her concerns about Officer A. Therefore, he could not have come to a conclusion that there was insufficient evidence.
   2. the Chief Executive should listen and respond to “the population he is employed to serve”.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 September 2024. It said:
   1. on 12 August 2024 the resident confirmed to it that she did not have any additional evidence about her complaint against Officer A. Therefore, if the complaint officer had contacted the resident to discuss her complaint, it would not have resulted in a different outcome. It said if the resident had any additional evidence it would look into the matter again.
   2. its stage 1 response it provided the resident as to why the Chief Executive did not respond directly to her contact was sufficient.
8. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said that the landlord’s Chief Executive should take responsibility, and the landlord should have better communication.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns about its investigation into her complaint about staff conduct

9. The landlord explained that at the time of the complaint, it was not required to contact residents prior responding to complaints and that it had sufficient understanding of the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s comments in relation to this are acknowledged. However, given the nature of the complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have spoken to the resident directly about her concerns.
10. As stated in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) effective complaint handling enables residents to be heard and understood. Therefore, a call from the landlord may have reassured the resident that it had all the relevant information to carry out a meaningful, impartial and fair investigation into her complaint about Officer A. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
11. By calling the resident on 12 August 2024 the landlord took reasonable steps to put matters right – and ensure that the resident had some opportunity to discuss her concerns. The landlord set out in its complaint responses that the resident confirmed during the call that she did not have any supporting information that Officer A made the comments. It also stated that, therefore, if the complaints officer had called the resident at the time of her original complaint, the outcome would not have been different. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident disputed this. Taking this into consideration and the evidence available, we consider that the landlord’s response was reasonable.
12. The landlord also said that it would investigate the matter if the resident had evidence that Officer A had made the comments that she was concerned about. This demonstrated that it was taking her complaint seriously and would investigate her concerns if she found reasonable evidence on the matter. That was appropriate.
13. It also said that its new complaint policy encouraged and expected complaint handlers to call residents prior to responding to their complaints. This is reflected in its October 2024 complaint policy that states complaint handlers will call residents to discuss their complaints before a response is issued. Therefore, the landlord’s response was appropriate and demonstrated that it had taken steps to prevent a similar incident occurring in the future.
14. The landlord missed an opportunity to reassure the resident that it would appropriately investigate her concerns about Officer A when it did not call her when she raised a complaint about him. However, its actions highlighted above demonstrate that it took reasonable and proportionate action to put matters right – and that it has learnt from the complaint. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord has taken appropriate action to put matters right prior to our investigation.

The Chief Executive response to the resident’s emails

15. While unclear the evidence suggests that the resident raised concerns that the landlord’s Chief Executive (CEO) did not respond to her complaint emails. When the landlord issued its response, it said that it was not feasible for the CEO to respond to her emails. It explained that when he received them, he or his team would pass the complaint onto the relevant department to investigate and respond. It explained this was in line with its policies and procedures.
16. It is noted that this may have been disappointing for the resident to hear. Landlords have policies and procedures in place to ensure complaints are dealt with by the appropriate staff members that have the knowledge and experience to effectively respond to complaints. Therefore, the landlord’s response was proportionate and reasonable. Therefore, we have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its Chief Executive response to her emails.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its investigation into her complaint about staff conduct.
18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its Chief Executive response to her emails.