Places for People Group Limited (202107651)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107651

Places for People Group Limited

30 March 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 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to reports about its staff member’s conduct towards the resident.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord at a property that is a flat in a block of similar properties. On 3 February 2021, the resident rang the landlord to report that a member of its staff had used offensive language and shouted at him while accusing him of urinating in the communal areas of the block. The staff member’s line manager called the resident that day to discuss the incident.
3. The resident contacted the line manager for an update twice via text message between 18 February and 29 March 2021. On 30 March 2021, following a telephone conversation with the resident that day, the line manager emailed him to apologise for not replying sooner, and to confirm that on the day of the incident they had told the staff member that they must not “accost customers in the manner that [they] did.” The line manager said that they did not feel they could take further action at this time, but would do so if this happened again. The resident then asked the landlord who else he could speak to about the incident, and he was given the contact details of a second manager.
4. On 28 April 2021, following an earlier exchange of emails with the second manager, the resident made a formal complaint about the staff member’s accusations. He also said that he did not think their line manager was taking his report seriously. The resident said he wanted the staff member to receive a written warning and he wanted to know why they had targeted him.
5. On 11 May 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said it had to accept both the resident’s and the staff member’s versions of events. It apologised to the resident for the staff member’s behaviour, however, and said this was “inappropriate and offensive both in their content and the way in which they were delivered”. The landlord stated that they would attend a formal counselling meeting with their manager. It also said the line manager investigated the resident’s report, but should have sent him a written response sooner, arranged a formal meeting with the staff member and kept a formal record of this. The landlord stated that it partially upheld the complaint and had asked the manager to attend more to monitor its service.
6. On 13 May 2021, the resident escalated the complaint. As the stage one response had said the landlord must believe its staff member, he asked if it was saying that they had made allegations about him or had said they had evidence. If so, the resident wanted the opportunity to refute any such claims. He also said it seemed that the landlord thought there was some mitigation for the staff member’s behaviour.
7. On 4 June 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response. It said the staff member’s interaction and language were not appropriate, and that they had confirmed that there was no evidence that the resident was responsible for the urination. The landlord also explained that it could not discuss any disciplinary action taken against a member of staff as that was confidential, but would take any action it felt necessary to ensure that its staff conducted themselves in line with its values. It again partially upheld the complaint, and said that it had put in place measures to ensure that there was no repeat of the staff member’s behaviour, for which their line manager would make monthly site visits for the next three months.
8. The resident explained to this Service that he remained dissatisfied, as he did not feel that the staff member’s behaviour had been investigated properly by the landlord. The outcome he sought was an apology from the staff member, compensation for being treated unfairly, and for the staff member’s behaviour to be investigated properly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has said that he thinks that the member of staff should have received a written warning for their unacceptable behaviour and apologised to the resident. The Ombudsman nevertheless does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with individual members of staff’s disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.
10. When investigating a complaint about a landlord, this Service will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated remedies would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. We cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members, or order remedies from individual staff such as personal apologies.
11. The resident reports that the stress of the incident has affected his health. This Service does not doubt his comments regarding his health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, or to award damages for these. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine personal injury claims in the way that the courts or insurers might, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. We can however consider the general distress and inconvenience which the incident, and the landlord’s response to this, may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to reports about its staff member’s conduct towards the resident

12. On 3 February 2021, when the resident reported the staff member’s behaviour to the landlord, it acted appropriately by referring the report to the staff member’s line manager, who then called the resident on the same day to discuss the incident. Its records showed that the line manager reported that they had spoken to the staff member, and advised them to call the contact centre to deal with “dirty cleans” in relation to the urine in the block’s communal areas, which was appropriate.
13. However, given the nature of the resident’s allegations, it would have been reasonable for the line manager to have arranged a formal counselling meeting with the staff member. As it was later confirmed in its complaint responses that such a meeting had not taken place at the time but should have done, its response to the report about its staff member’s conduct was not as full or as formal as it ought to have been, which it acknowledged in its complaint responses.
14. On 18 February 2021, the resident texted the line manager to confirm that he had not received an apology for the incident but would like one, ask if the manager had explained to the member of staff that they should not approach residents in the manner that they did, and clarify that their allegations were false. As the issue was still unresolved it would have been reasonable for the line manager to have contacted the resident promptly and possibly discussed the option of raising a formal complaint.
15. However, the line manager agreed to call the resident in the following week and then failed to do so. There was no further contact between the resident and the manager until over five weeks later, when, on 29 March 2021, the resident texted the line manager to ask if there was somebody else he should contact, as he had heard nothing from them and had not yet received an apology from the landlord.
16. When the line manager sent their written response to the resident on 30 March 2021, it had been almost eight weeks since the resident had reported the staff member’s conduct on 3 February 2021, during which he had to chase a response twice. This was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to have to wait for a full response, and particularly as he had described finding the incident distressing and wanting to defend himself against the allegations. Therefore, when the line manager called and emailed the resident on 30 March 2021, to confirm that they had spoken to the staff member “following the incident”, their apology for the delay, which the landlord later said was due to an oversight, was appropriate.
17. However, the resident said that the line manager then used the length of time that had passed since the incident as one of the reasons that they did not feel able to take further action, unless there was a recurrence of the staff member’s behaviour. This was not reasonable, as the resident was not responsible for the delay. Furthermore, as the landlord’s complaints policy states that formal complaints can be raised within six months of an incident or problem occurring, a complaint could still have been raised, and subsequently was, and further action taken if necessary. Therefore, there was another failing by the landlord in respect of its response to the report of a staff member’s conduct, which its complaint responses also recognised.
18. As the resident was still dissatisfied with the line manager’s response and felt the issue had not been resolved, it would have been reasonable for the manager to discuss the option of him making a formal complaint about this, however they failed to do so. The resident asked who else he should contact regarding his dissatisfaction and the line manager gave him the contact details for a second manager. It is not clear what role the second manager was taking, or what the purpose of the line manager giving the resident the second manager’s details was, but several emails were exchanged between the resident and the second manager between 30 March to 12 April 2021.
19. The resident explained to the second manager that the accusations had left him distressed, and that he had received little reassurance from the line manager. He said that the line manager had told him that the staff member had asked other residents if they were responsible for the urination too, and that it seemed that the line manager felt that this behaviour was justified due to the staff member being upset by the urination.
20. The second manager’s response during their email exchange with the resident was appropriate, as they apologised for the distress caused, pointed out that the line manager had also apologised and thanked the resident for his feedback, which they said helped identify training needs that would be fed back to the line manager. However, there is no record of the second manager having spoken to the staff member, or having explained to the resident that he could raise a formal complaint if he felt the issue was unresolved.
21. When the resident responded to the second manager during the email exchange, he explained that he felt they were just agreeing with the line manager, he had received no “official” apology, he was worried about the staff member’s lack of respect, and he worried about being targeted again. This, therefore, was further evidence that the resident remained dissatisfied with the resolution. It was also evidence of the ongoing impact that he reported that the incident and the allegations had on him. There was a record of the second manager arranging to call the resident, but there is no record of them discussing him making a formal complaint about this, or of them acknowledging or addressing the ongoing impact on the resident.
22. In a final email from the resident to the second manager on 24 April 2021, he asked how to make a formal complaint, and said that he had received “no satisfactory explanation why [the staff member] targeted me…other than [they were] in a bad mood”. Due to at least two missed opportunities for the resident’s unresolved concerns to be raised as a formal complaint, and a failure to fully appreciate and address the impact that the incident and allegations had on him, there was a further failing by the landlord in respect of its response to the report of its staff member’s conduct towards the resident.
23. It was therefore appropriate that both of the landlord’s stage one and final stage complaint responses to the resident of 11 May and 4 June 2021 apologised to him for the delivery and content of the staff member’s language and behaviour towards him, and confirmed that they would attend a formal counselling meeting with their line manager. It was also reasonable that it added that the meeting, a formal record of this and the manager’s response to the resident should have occurred sooner, as well as that the manager would make monthly site visits for the next three months to monitor its staff’s behaviour and that it would take any disciplinary action for this that it felt necessary.
24. This is because the landlord’s above actions addressed the resident’s distress and dissatisfaction with both the staff member’s behaviour and its subsequent handling of his reports about this by acknowledging and apologising for his concerns about the behaviour and the line manager’s investigation of this. It additionally put right the manager’s lack of a formal counselling meeting with the staff member or record of this by agreeing to arrange these, and any further action that it deemed necessary, and it reassured the resident that it sought to prevent such behaviour from occurring again in the future via monthly monitoring visits by the manager.
25. It is nevertheless of concern that, while the landlord apologised to the resident for the almost eight-week delay in the line manager’s response to his reports about the staff member’s behaviour, it did not consider exercising the discretion available to it to recognise this or the rest of its above failings under its compensation policy. As the policy permitted it to compensate the resident in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that he experienced from its lack of communication/staff attitude with £50 but it did not consider doing so, it has been ordered to do so below as well as recommended to review its relevant staff training needs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

26. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 11 May 2021 partially upheld the resident’s complaint, but did not specify which parts of the complaint had and had not been upheld. It also said the line manager had investigated the resident’s reports about the staff member’s behaviour, but it acknowledged, apologised for and attempted to put right the failings that it had identified in relation to this, as outlined above. The landlord’s stage complaint one response also said that “While [it] must accept both [the resident’s] and [the staff member’s] version of events [it was] satisfied that comments were made by [the] staff member”, and that the comments were “inappropriate and offensive both in their content and the way in which they were delivered”.
27. It is important that any complaint responses from the landlord provide clear reasons for any decisions. Its records confirmed that the part of the complaint about the staff member’s conduct was actually fully upheld. However, due to the stage one response not clarifying which part of the complaint had not been upheld, along with the ambiguity of its wording about “versions of events”, the resident assumed that the part of the complaint about the staff member’s behaviour had been partially upheld.
28. The resident interpreted this to mean that the staff member had either made counter-allegations about him, had said they had evidence to back up their allegations, or that there was some other mitigating factor that the landlord had taken into account that resulted in them only partially upholding that part of his complaint. He escalated the complaint as he was unhappy that the complaint had only been partially upheld, wanted to know what the staff member had said, and to be given the chance to respond to any counter-allegations.
29. The landlord’s final stage complaint response acknowledged that the resident was unhappy that the complaint had only been partially upheld. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained at that point that the part of the complaint about the staff member’s conduct had been fully upheld, and clarified that it was, in fact, the part of the complaint that concerned the line manager’s actions that had been partially upheld.
30. However, the landlord did not do that, and it did not mention the line manager’s actions at all in its final stage complaint response. It did confirm that the staff member had said there was no evidence that the resident was involved in what they had accused him of. This was reasonable as the landlord addressed one of the questions the resident had asked in his escalation request, although it would have been helpful for it to have added that the staff member had also made no counter allegations, and had admitted to their inappropriate behaviour.
31. The landlord also confirmed that it could not discuss any disciplinary action taken against a staff member. This was reasonable, as its complaint policy states that it “we will not share specific details affecting staff members, particularly where disciplinary action is taken”. The landlord agreed with its original decision and partially upheld the complaint, but again it would have been helpful to explain which part of the complaint had not been upheld and it did not do so.
32. As the landlord was not clear in how it explained the reasons for its decisions in either of its response, there was a failing by it in respect of its complaint handling. As described above, its compensation policy permitted it to recognise any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of this with £50 compensation, but it did not consider doing so. The landlord has therefore been ordered below the compensate the resident accordingly for its poor complaint handling, as well as having been recommended to review its relevant staff training needs.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to reports about its staff member’s conduct towards the resident.
34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Order and recommendation

35. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £100 compensation within four weeks, comprising of £50 each for any distress and inconvenience that he experienced as a result of its lack of communication/staff attitude with regard to its staff member’s conduct towards him and its complaint handling.
36. The landlord is recommended to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures regarding its values, staff conduct towards residents, disciplinary action, complaints and compensation, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its failings in the resident’s case. This should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
37. The landlord shall contact this Service with four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendation.