Selwood Housing Society Limited (202432833)

Decision
Case ID	202432833
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Selwood Housing Society Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

1. The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour to complete repairs. The operative parked his van outside the resident’s home and discussed him with his neighbour which caused him distress. The landlord records the resident is vulnerable due to mental health conditions. An advocacy service asked us to investigate the complaint on behalf of the resident. We have referred to his advocate as ‘the resident’ in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s staff conduct concerns.
3. We have investigated the landlords complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s staff conduct concerns.
5. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Staff conduct

6. The landlord investigated the incident fairly. It reminded staff about its conduct standards and provided clear information to the resident about its investigation. It did not offer the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience the matter caused him.

Complaint handling

7. There were minor failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, these did not affect the outcome for the resident.

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 follow 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience its handling of his staff conduct concerns caused him. It must pay this directly to him by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 13 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Record keeping and Vulnerability We recommend the landlord reviews: the resident’s circumstances to ensure its records are up to date with reference to any reported health issues. The landlord should contact him to obtain further information if needed whether its staff require further training or it needs to review its safeguarding and vulnerability policies

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 February 2024	The resident made a stage 1 complaint about the behaviour of an operative attending a neighbour’s property. He said he experienced similar issues with the same operative in the past. To resolve his complaint the resident wanted a face-to-face meeting with the operative and for the landlord to contact his neighbour about the incident.
1 March 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said it spoke to the operative but it had been unable to speak to his neighbour, despite leaving voicemails. It said it reminded staff about its code of conduct. It said it could not take further action and asked him to provide any recorded footage. It said the incident involved a different operative to an earlier incident and it had added an alert to his account reminding staff not to park in front of his property. It said it could not agree a face-to-face meeting and the resident should not contact the operative directly. It offered to visit him at home.
4 March 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said it had not investigated his complaint fully. He gave the landlord his neighbour’s contact details and said if she confirmed he misheard information during the incident he would accept it.
25 March 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said it discussed incidents with the operative and his neighbour. It said his neighbour confirmed she had spoken to the operative about parking his van outside the resident’s property. She also said the operative dismissed the matter by saying the resident often complained. It acknowledged the operative’s handling of the matter was inappropriate and did not show respect. It apologised for this and confirmed it had spoken to the operative and told him not to park outside the resident’s home.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. To put matters right he said the landlord should review its policies and procedures and assess the competency of staff so residents do not experience distress.

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.

Complaint	Staff conduct
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

8. The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of its vulnerability and support need records and its handling of antisocial behaviour. The resident raised stage 1 complaints about these matters which he has not escalated to stage 2. If he is unhappy about these matters, he should escalate his complaints to the landlord first and then to us if he remains unhappy with the landlord’s final response.
9. We do not investigate complaints that concern the terms of employment or other personnel issues as this is a matter for the landlord. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of its operatives competency but we have commented on its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

What we have investigated

10. The resident complained to the landlord about an incident that took place on 14 February 2024 involving a repair operative. He explained the operative parked in front of his house to repair the neighbour’s property and that he overheard him talking negatively about him to a neighbour. He said he had a similar experience with the operative previously and wanted to talk to him to resolve matters. The landlord reassured him it would investigate the incident as a complaint and advised him not to contact the operative.
11. The landlord listened to the resident’s complaint phone call and spoke to him and the operative to understand the situation from both sides. It was unable to talk to the resident’s neighbour at stage 1 of its investigation despite making phone calls and leaving voicemail messages. The landlord made reasonable attempts to do so which it explained in its stage 1 response to manage the resident’s expectations. It also offered to review any recorded footage the resident could provide.
12. The landlord told the resident the incident involved a different operative than previously to clear up any misunderstanding. It said it could not agree a face-to-face meeting between the parties but to resolve matters it reminded staff about the importance of attitude and behaviour. It also said it added an alert to its database to remind staff not to park outside the resident’s property, unless in an emergency. The landlord’s response was proportionate, but it missed the opportunity to apologise for the distress the incident caused the resident.
13. The resident escalated the complaint because the landlord had not spoken to his neighbour when investigating his stage 1 complaint. He provided her contact details, and the landlord emailed her the next day to investigate the matters further. There is no evidence she replied. However, the landlord spoke to her while it was on a phone call with the resident on 21 March 2024. It made detailed notes of her comments which it used to reach its final decision on the complaint.
14. The landlord’s code of conduct policy applies to all staff and contractors and says they should present high standards of personal integrity and conduct. They must also be aware of, and respect, others’ individual differences and treat everyone with respect. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the operative had not upheld these standards during the incident. It explained the operative should not have discussed matters with the resident’s neighbour, and he should have respected the resident by moving his vehicle when asked. It apologised for these failings in a meaningful way.
15. Our dispute resolution principles are – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s apology and its decision to add an alert to its database was fair. Its decision to remind staff about the importance of conduct showed it learned from the complaint. However, it did not offer the resident compensation in line with its complaints procedure to recognise the distress and inconvenience the matter caused him and put things right. Considering this, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s staff conduct concerns.
16. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the impact of its failings. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance where we have found service failure that has caused time and trouble to the resident pursuing a resolution.

Complaint	The complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

17. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It also says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
18. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints. However, it responded to his stage 1 complaint in 10 working days and his stage 2 in 14 working days. Its responses were in keeping with its complaint policy target timescales, but it did not say if it upheld the complaints.
19. The landlord’s minor complaint handling failings did not have a significant impact on the outcome for the resident. We found no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

20. The landlord should acknowledge all complaints and its complaint responses should say whether it upholds a complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord kept detailed records of emails and conversations with the resident and his neighbour when investigating the matter.

Communication

22. The landlord empathised with the resident’s circumstances and mental health issues when it spoke to him on the telephone. It added alerts on its housing database for staff to be aware of the resident’s needs, to support its communication with him.