Southwark Council (202100422)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100422

Southwark Council

31 January 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 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of his reports about the conduct of a member of staff.

Background and summary of events

Summary of events

2. On 8 July 2020, following the death of his father, the resident spoke to the staff member to enquire about succeeding the tenancy and was provided with the relevant paperwork which he completed and provided to the landlord.
3. On 24 August, the member of staff sent an email informing the resident that the documents provided were not clear and for him to produce the originals either by recorded delivery or a meeting in the office.
4. On 27 August the resident emailed back confirming the office appointment.
5. On 14 September the resident attended the meeting.
6. On 6 October, the landlord received the resident’s complaint about its member of staff. The resident noted that the staff member had made him attend the office even though she was aware of his difficulties walking and also made him accompany her to the photocopier, ‘grabbing’ documents out of his hands, some of which were not for her perusal and then copied these documents without his consent.
7. The landlord provided its stage one response apologising for the delay and offered its condolences. It noted it took complaints about staff behaviour seriously, but the investigation had been difficult due to the differing version of events and no collaborating evidence. It noted the resident had the opportunity to inform the member of staff about his mobility issues prior to agreeing to the office meeting but did not. The landlord noted that the member of staff had asked him to disclose his vulnerability and he chose not to. It advised that whilst the resident alleged, he was made to walk to the photocopier, the photocopier used was past the turnstiles and not accessible to the public and a staff pass was needed to access the area.
8. The landlord noted the staff member rejected the allegation that she had grabbed papers out of the resident’s hand, but rather he had given her the documents relating to his daughter. It apologised that he had had to complain but noted it had assessed the actions and conduct of the staff member and was satisfied she acted professionally and there was no evidence to support his allegation or any wrongdoing.
9. On 24 November the resident escalated his complaint that the member of staff had spoken to him in a derogatory and degrading manner, refused to hand back documents he had not given her permission to copy and rushed off through secure barriers which he could not access. He advised the staff member had stood far away from him when he initially arrived at the office and made him walk towards her even though she knew he was disabled. The resident advised he had previously provided the documents, but the landlord had made him attend the offices and the staff member was rude and condescending bringing hm to tears and physically shaken. The resident noted his dissatisfaction that CCTV had not been reviewed as part of the stage 1 investigation.
10. On 8 January 2021, the landlord provided its final response. It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with the conduct of the member of staff. It confirmed that the resident had attended its offices on 14 September to succeed the tenancy and paperwork relating to his daughter was photocopied. It noted it had attempted to view the CCTV however the retention period was only 30 days, and this had lapsed. It noted recordings were only saved by request. It advised it was unable to confirm or dispute the resident’s version of events, but another member of staff present on the day had noted there had been no issue with the staff members conduct. It apologised for any distress caused, but noted that the photocopier was not accessible to the public therefore the allegation that he was made to walk to this was disputed.
11. The resident subsequently brought the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

12. Following the resident’s enquiry to succeed his late father’s tenancy, the landlord provided him with information it required, and the resident responded shortly after. Upon review the landlord noted the documentation was not clear and originals were needed. The landlord provided the resident with two options- sending this by secure mail or attending its offices. As the resident chose to attend the office it cannot be said that the landlord imposed this. The resident was aware of his disability and was best placed to make a judgment on whether he could or could not attend the offices. Furthermore, upon choosing to the attend, the resident did not note any mobility requirements that may have been needed on the day. Whilst the resident states the landlord was aware of his mobility issues, given that he had chosen to attend the offices, it was his responsibility to inform the landlord if there were any adjustments he required. The member of staff asking him to walk over was not unreasonable, although it may have appeared more friendly to meet him and walk him over, however this was not a failing.
13. Given that there are differing version of events it would be difficult for the landlord to agree or disagree with either version without corroborating evidence. The resident’s assertion that the landlord should have considered CCTV was valid, but it is unfortunate that at the point of looking to do so, the recording was no longer available due to the retention period. The Ombudsman would usually expect a landlord to interview all parties involved and it did so. Given the stalemate it would then have been useful to view the CCTV, however this was a missed opportunity, for which the Ombudsman will make a recommendation.
14. Given the lack of evidence to support the resident’s assertion and the landlord’s consideration of the matter, the Ombudsman accepts earlier action could have ensured a decision was reached on the allegation either way, but that with another member of staff present on the day noting there had been no issue or altercation, the landlord’s response was balanced.

Determination (decision)

15. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its consideration of the resident’s allegation about a member of staff.

Reasons

16. The landlord gave the resident an option of sending information by post or attending its offices, it was his choice to attend. Following the resident’s allegation, the landlord considered this and interviewed the member of staff accused. It could have viewed CCTV when the accusation was made but did not and was unable to do so later on, however in the course of its investigation another member of staff who was present on the day noted there had been no issue. Given this could have been perceived as biased, the landlord reasonably concluded it was unable to disprove or prove the resident’s allegations.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

17. The Ombudsman recommends that when allegations of staff conduct are made, the landlord consider CCTV immediately given the limited timeframe where this is available and request that this is saved, to produce later if necessary.