The Guinness Partnership Limited (202204790)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204790

The Guinness Partnership Limited

23 January 2023

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 reports received about the resident’s behaviour towards concierge staff.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is situated in a block of flats. The building has a communal area.
3. On 22 March 2022, the resident reported to a member of the landlord’s staff that an individual had been sick in the communal area of the building. Following this report, the staff member reported to the landlord that the resident had been verbally abusive. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 March 2022 and asked her to refrain from abusing staff. The resident disputed the allegation and stated that she had recorded the conversation and if the landlord had permission from the staff member, she would share the recording.
4. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 24 April 2022, she stated that the allegations had made it uncomfortable for her to live in the building. She was dissatisfied that the landlord would not listen to the recording, but had taken the allegation to be true and recorded it on its systems. The resident wanted the allegations to be deleted from the system, and for the landlord to listen to the recording and investigate the allegations further. The resident also sought a meeting with the landlord’s board to discuss the allegations.
5. In the landlord’s final response on 7 June 2022, it advised it could not listen to the recording due to GDPR, as it had been recorded without the staff member’s consent. In addition, it advised the resident that the recording was unlikely to change the outcome as it had followed its common process for complaints. Furthermore, it stated that the recording would not have prevented it from asking the resident to refrain from abusing its staff as it would not have been able to verify the recording. It stated that the allegations had been addressed with the resident and its staff member, and it had decided that no further action was necessary. Moreover, it provided the resident with information on how she could request for any data to be deleted. The landlord also informed the resident that it could not facilitate a meeting with its board, as this would be a breach of the resident’s current contact restrictions.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 14 June 2022. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she felt it had not provided reasoning for why it chose not to listen to the recording. She believed that the landlord broke the law by not asking the staff member for permission and that its policies only protected its staff members. The resident felt as though she had been discriminated against, as the landlord declined her request to meet with its board. In addition, she was unhappy that the landlord had advised her that she would need to wait eight weeks before the Ombudsman would be able to look at her complaint. The resident is seeking for the allegations to be removed from the landlord’s systems, and for a meeting to be arranged with the landlord’s board.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

7. The Tenancy Agreement states that the landlord will not tolerate anti-social behaviour including; harassment, victimisation, annoyance or nuisance including those made via any form of social media, and will act within its powers and under its policies and procedures to deal with it.
8. The landlord’s ‘Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), Hate Crime and Hate Incidents Policy’ states that it will take action which is proportionate to the severity, impact and frequency of the ASB.
9. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a duty of care to its staff, and it will not tolerate unacceptable behaviour from complainants towards its staff or anyone providing services. It states that an example of unacceptable behaviour would be verbal abuse. It states that in such cases, the resident may be placed on a contact management plan, where the resident is restricted to a single person of contact from the landlord.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports it had received about the resident’s behaviour towards concierge staff.

10. In this case, following a report from its staff, the landlord contacted the resident and advised her of the allegation of verbal abuse that had been made. In addition, it asked her to refrain from abusing its staff and to direct any complaints about any of its concierge staff to the landlord directly. However, it may have been helpful for the landlord to consider its wording in the email it sent to the resident to ensure it was more impartial, although it has advised that the allegations were dealt with on both sides.
11. Furthermore, it acted in line with its Anti-Social Behaviour, Hate Crime and Hate Incidents Policy and considered the impact and severity of the allegation before deciding that no further action was needed. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident was concerned about the allegations and how this would impact her, the landlord explained to the resident that the allegations were dealt with as such and would not be pursued further. It also explained that its records in relation to any reports of anti-social behaviour were internal, and only visible to the necessary staff members and would therefore not impact the resident. Moreover, it acted appropriately by providing the resident with the details of its Information Management Team who would be able to deal with her request for the records to be deleted.
12. After the resident had been informed of the allegations, she informed the landlord that she had a recording of the conversation which would prove that the allegations were false, but was dissatisfied that the landlord had advised it would not listen to the recordings due to GDPR. It is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service to comment on how GDPR should be interpreted, as this would fall within the remit of the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office). In addition, we are unable to comment on employment matters and, in this case, the landlord seeking to protect its staff members’ privacy would be classed as an employment matter.
13. However, this Service is able to consider whether the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request, and justified its decision on the matter effectively. Whilst the landlord decided not to listen to the recording, it informed the resident that the recording would have been unlikely to change the outcome of the situation, as it would have been unable to verify it. In addition, it stated that it would not have changed any actions it had taken in relation to the allegations as it ultimately decided no further action was needed, once it had ensured that its staff member and the resident were both aware of its expectations, as per the tenancy agreement and its policies. Therefore, it is clear that the landlord had carefully considered the resident’s request and ultimately justified its approach to the resident.
14. Similarly, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision that it would not facilitate a meeting between the resident and the landlord’s board. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident was seeking for the meeting to take place so that she was able to discuss her concerns in relation to the allegations, the landlord had acted in line with its complaints policy for dealing with unacceptable behaviour and the landlord was not obligated to allow the resident to have a meeting with its board. Residents are not automatically entitled to speak to the board of a landlord, and the landlord decided how best to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policies. It may have been helpful for the landlord to provide a more thorough explanation of this during its communication with the resident, but this would not constitute a failing on the landlord’s behalf.
15. It is noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the escalation information provided by the landlord, as it stated that the resident would need to wait eight weeks before escalating her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident referenced a Government White Paper to support her concerns, and stated it said that she did not need to follow the guidance in the landlord’s stage two response about the eight week wait. However, at the time of this complaint the landlord acted in line with the relevant guidance in paragraph 39(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which stated that ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made within eight weeks of having exhausted a social landlord’s complaints procedure’. The new guidance came into effect from 1 October 2022, and has made it easier for residents to access this Service as there is no longer an eight week wait, or the need to be referred by a designated person. Therefore, whilst it is something the landlord should consider in any future complaints, in this case, the landlord had acted appropriately.
16. Overall, the landlord had acted in line with its policies and procedures throughout its handling of the allegations. It reminded both parties of any obligations and expectations, and ultimately decided to take no further action. In addition, the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s requests in relation to the recording and provided reasoning for its decision to not listen to it. Whilst there were occasions where it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide further information in order to justify its approach, such as when considering the resident’s request for a meeting with its board. However, it had acted in line with its policies and there was no obligation for it to facilitate such a meeting.

Determination

17.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the reports it had received about the resident’s behaviour towards concierge staff.

Recommendations

18. The landlord is recommended to review any training needs of its staff in relation to complaint handling to ensure it is providing effective and clear explanations to its residents for any decisions reached.